Stick a fork in him.

[Guest Guest]

Great post.

Only you would think so, 2dim. That's why you're always the only one saying things like this about your posts. Pathetic.

[Guest a proud american]

Only you would think so, 2dim. That's why you're always the only one saying things like this about your posts. Pathetic.

You know it's interesting. All of the people here criticizing Obama for the statements made by his pastor seem to have short memories.

So lets look at some of the Republican Candidates of the past and present. The 9/11 kid's priest has been accused by the grand jury of molesting several children. Have or did we hear Rudy criticize th

at priest?

Mitt Romney's Mormon Church for years vilified african americans by discriminating against them. Did he apologize for that behavior?

Jerry Fallwell said america had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. Any republican politician condemn that remark?

Pat Robertson believes that Ugo Chavez should be executed. Didn't hear anyone on here denounce him.

the Reverend Hagee, one of Mc Cains spiritual advisors calls the catholic church the great whores. He goes on to say that the anti christ will arise out of europe and the he will be jewish leading us to armagedden. Has Mc Cain criticised those remarks or distanced himself from Hagee. No he appears on stage with him gladly accepting his endorsement. In fact, he said he was proud of the endorsement.

The theres the Reverend Parsley. Another Mc Cain spiritual advisor. He believes that America was founded to kill muslims.

So the question is, when is Mc Cain going to give a speech condemning his spiritual advisors.

Because religion has become so divisive over the years is the main reason I don't attend church any more. Sadly, you out there who subscribe to the old politics of hate won't understand Obamas speech. But I hope that at-least now that we know some of the other sides spiritual thinking, maybe some of you who are catholic or muslim will be as offended by what these pastors have said and demand Mc Cain throw them under the bus like you want Barack to do to the Reverend Wright.

[Guest Patriot]

You know it's interesting. All of the people here criticizing Obama for the statements made by his pastor seem to have short memories.

So lets look at some of the Republican Candidates of the past and present. The 9/11 kid's priest has been accused by the grand jury of molesting several children. Have or did we hear Rudy criticize th

at priest?

Mitt Romney's Mormon Church for years vilified african americans by discriminating against them. Did he apologize for that behavior?

Jerry Fallwell said america had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. Any republican politician condemn that remark?

Pat Robertson believes that Ugo Chavez should be executed. Didn't hear anyone on here denounce him.

the Reverend Hagee, one of Mc Cains spiritual advisors calls the catholic church the great whores. He goes on to say that the anti christ will arise out of europe and the he will be jewish leading us to armagedden. Has Mc Cain criticised those remarks or distanced himself from Hagee. No he appears on stage with him gladly accepting his endorsement. In fact, he said he was proud of the endorsement.

The theres the Reverend Parsley. Another Mc Cain spiritual advisor. He believes that America was founded to kill muslims.

So the question is, when is Mc Cain going to give a speech condemning his spiritual advisors.

Because religion has become so divisive over the years is the main reason I don't attend church any more. Sadly, you out there who subscribe to the old politics of hate won't understand Obamas speech. But I hope that at-least now that we know some of the other sides spiritual thinking, maybe some of you who are catholic or muslim will be as offended by what these pastors have said and demand Mc Cain throw them under the bus like you want Barack to do to the Reverend Wright.

Your LoonyLeft justifications for Obama's choice in mentors is rediculous.

Any remark you can dig up about Fallwell or Robertson or whoever doesn't compare with the vicious, sick rantings of the lunatic Rev. Wright.

[Guest Guest]

You're jumping to conclusions again. Obama supporters tend to be zombies simply because the guy has so little to recommend him beyond his silver tongue and considerable charisma. There's not much "there" there for an Obama supporter to use to justify supporting him. Even Ron Paul had a more distinctive appeal than Obama. While I do expect that Obama supporters have the largest zombie contingent of any presidential candidate this cycle . . .

You must be convinced that Obama is set to become president. He seems to have you quite worried.

Just because you don't want to like him doesn't mean that he isn't exactly what Bill Richardson says he is: a once-in-a-lifetime leader. That's what tens of millions of us see. It's not just about a silver tongue and charisma. He has extraordinary leadership qualities, has remained calm under fire and is brilliant. No one becomes president of the Harvard Law Review without having a world-class intellect, and no one comes out of nowhere to beat back a presumptive presidential nominee without having tremendous political skill and savvy.

Add to that the fact that he is right on the issues at this point in our history, and you're looking at the next President of the United States in Barack Obama.

Like the first and only President Clinton, he did it all on his own, rising to this position from a humble background entirely on his own merit. Unlike President Clinton, he understands the importance of ideals and involvement of the people in the political process.

[Guest Guest]

Your LoonyLeft justifications for Obama's choice in mentors is rediculous.

Any remark you can dig up about Fallwell or Robertson or whoever doesn't compare with the vicious, sick rantings of the lunatic Rev. Wright.

How exactly is blaming 9/11 on our nations tolerance better than blaming it on our political policies in the Middle East?

[Guest Guest]

Your LoonyLeft justifications for Obama's choice in mentors is rediculous.

Any remark you can dig up about Fallwell or Robertson or whoever doesn't compare with the vicious, sick rantings of the lunatic Rev. Wright.

Dig up? These two said things far worse than what Wright said, and it was reported nationally many, many times.

[Bryan]

You must be convinced that Obama is set to become president. He seems to have you quite worried.

I do think that Obama would function poorly as president, much along the lines of Jimmy Carter. To the extent that I think Obama would make a poor president combined with the possibility that unthinking voters will put him in office, yes I am worried. But it's not really Obama so much as the prospect of a unified government of the left. Presidents don't really have that much power. For all his talk of bringing people together, an Obama presidency would probably just mean a focus on implementing bad ("progressive") policies.

Just because you don't want to like him doesn't mean that he isn't exactly what Bill Richardson says he is: a once-in-a-lifetime leader.

How quickly they forget Jimmy Carter.

I've said a number of times that I find Obama likable; I've said nothing to the contrary of that, so I don't see why you should include that lying insinuation in your post (unless you're a LaClair sock puppet?).

There's no rational basis for calling this rookie a once-in-a-lifetime leader. Well, okay, Bill Richardson has reason to call him that since Richardson wouldn't mind being tabbed as veep or for a position in Obama's cabinet (I think I already noted the tendency of late endorsements rate low in sincerity and high in representing a job application).

What took Richardson so long, in your opinion? Why did it take him weeks after dropping out of the race to figure out that Obama is a "once in a lifetime" leader whom he should endorse?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01...dson-drops-out/

That's what tens of millions of us see. It's not just about a silver tongue and charisma. He has extraordinary leadership qualities, has remained calm under fire and is brilliant.

I guess you missed the press conference where he crumpled and ran away after getting asked about Rezko.

You see what you want to see, not reality.

No one becomes president of the Harvard Law Review without having a world-class intellect, and no one comes out of nowhere to beat back a presumptive presidential nominee without having tremendous political skill and savvy.

Both true. But his skill and savvy have amounted to keeping himself sufficiently blank to reflect the desires of Democratic voters, as even Obama appears to admit. All that does is delay the fracturing until after the election, assuming McCain won't successfully exploit it. I doubt that any amount of skill and savvy will hide Obama's real record once the national campaign rolls around. And the Wright association is probably going to remain a significant issue.

Add to that the fact that he is right on the issues at this point in our history, and you're looking at the next President of the United States in Barack Obama.

I'd love it if one of you Obama supporters would actually engage in discussion of policy, actually. It would be a refreshing change from "we need change."

Like the first and only President Clinton, he did it all on his own, rising to this position from a humble background entirely on his own merit. Unlike President Clinton, he understands the importance of ideals and involvement of the people in the political process.

Obama's history in the traditionally corrupt Illinois political scene suggests that he may share much more of Clinton's acumen than you either realize or are willing to admit.

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

I'd love it if you would try to address the issues you mentioned. But I'll understand it if you elect to go to your room and chant "O-ba-ma" for a couple of hours instead.

Why don't you start by telling me how great Obama's energy policy will be? Maybe he'll promote that ingenious boycott of Exxon-Mobil?

[Guest Guest]

I do think that Obama would function poorly as president, much along the lines of Jimmy Carter.

Of course you do. You're a radical right-winger who reacts reflexively against every Democrat. Just say "Obama is just like Carter," and you don't have to think.

[WilliamK]

I'd love it if one of you Obama supporters would actually engage in discussion of policy, actually. It would be a refreshing change from "we need change."

I'd love it if you would try to address the issues you mentioned. But I'll understand it if you elect to go to your room and chant "O-ba-ma" for a couple of hours instead.

Why don't you start by telling me how great Obama's energy policy will be? Maybe he'll promote that ingenious boycott of Exxon-Mobil?

You can read about it here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/. I think you'll find it noticeably similar to this one: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/. There are differences in the details, but the underlying positions are essentially alike. Both want to increase funding for basic energy research. Both want to increase automobile efficiency standards and offer help to U.S. Automakers for the retooling costs to meet those standards. Both want to promote development of alternative energy technologies by encouraging private investment as well as through public funding. Both favor job training programs for the jobs created by alternative energy technologies and the shift from foreign to domestic energy production. Both favor a "cap-and-trade" program for reducing industrial pollutants. A complete list of what they have in common would be a nearly complete list of both of their energy platforms.

This is a pattern you'll see over and over when comparing their positions on many issues. The Iraq war, torture, health care, government transparency, net neutrality, funding of basic research, etc. They are largely in agreement on nearly every issue. The problem is that this is still a contest between the two of them and not much with McCain yet, so the focus is naturally on the things that differentiate them, not the things they have in common. These are things like Sen. Obama's ability to inspire and unite vs. Sen. Clinton's greater experience and more established political connections. Things like electability. Things like how he or she will affect America's image internationally. Things like whether he or she will be able to win some cooperation across political boundaries or be incapacitated by polarization.

Their positions on the issues are out there. But you have to go looking for them on their web sites and in longer and less publicized speeches or interviews like the one Obama did at Google. Until this becomes a contest between democrat and republican rather than democrat and democrat, you won't see much more than sound bites about issues in the regular stump speeches or expressed by supporters. Positions on issues are important to why a person might favor democrats or republicans. But it plays a very minor role in why democrats favor Clinton or Obama. This is not due to shallowness or ignorance. It just isn't what differentiates the two candidates.

[Bryan]

Of course you do. You're a radical right-winger who reacts reflexively against every Democrat. Just say "Obama is just like Carter," and you don't have to think.

You're comfortable lying about me, eh?

I credit Bill Clinton with some good policy while he was president. I guess as a result he can't be a Democrat since I'm reflexively against all Democrats, though. Right? Same goes for JFK. Does that make them both Republicans? Just curious.

Carter ran on a similar theme to Obama's. He would bring real change to Washington. He essentially billed himself as the brightest and the best, and promised not to lie to the American people. Are you getting Obamistic chills yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#...ential_campaign

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/pt.html

The parallels are there if your eyes are open. Obama even picked Zbignew Brzezinski as a foreign policy adviser.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...arack_obama.cfm

[Guest Keith]

I do think that Obama would function poorly as president, much along the lines of Jimmy Carter. To the extent that I think Obama would make a poor president combined with the possibility that unthinking voters will put him in office, yes I am worried. But it's not really Obama so much as the prospect of a unified government of the left. Presidents don't really have that much power. For all his talk of bringing people together, an Obama presidency would probably just mean a focus on implementing bad ("progressive") policies.

How quickly they forget Jimmy Carter.

I've said a number of times that I find Obama likable; I've said nothing to the contrary of that, so I don't see why you should include that lying insinuation in your post (unless you're a LaClair sock puppet?).

There's no rational basis for calling this rookie a once-in-a-lifetime leader. Well, okay, Bill Richardson has reason to call him that since Richardson wouldn't mind being tabbed as veep or for a position in Obama's cabinet (I think I already noted the tendency of late endorsements rate low in sincerity and high in representing a job application).

What took Richardson so long, in your opinion? Why did it take him weeks after dropping out of the race to figure out that Obama is a "once in a lifetime" leader whom he should endorse?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01...dson-drops-out/

I guess you missed the press conference where he crumpled and ran away after getting asked about Rezko.

You see what you want to see, not reality.

Both true. But his skill and savvy have amounted to keeping himself sufficiently blank to reflect the desires of Democratic voters, as even Obama appears to admit. All that does is delay the fracturing until after the election, assuming McCain won't successfully exploit it. I doubt that any amount of skill and savvy will hide Obama's real record once the national campaign rolls around. And the Wright association is probably going to remain a significant issue.

I'd love it if one of you Obama supporters would actually engage in discussion of policy, actually. It would be a refreshing change from "we need change."

Obama's history in the traditionally corrupt Illinois political scene suggests that he may share much more of Clinton's acumen than you either realize or are willing to admit.

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

I'd love it if you would try to address the issues you mentioned. But I'll understand it if you elect to go to your room and chant "O-ba-ma" for a couple of hours instead.

Why don't you start by telling me how great Obama's energy policy will be? Maybe he'll promote that ingenious boycott of Exxon-Mobil?

I find it ironc that you said "unthinking voters" would put Obama in office. Would that be the same voters who gave us 8 years of George Bush? Are you better off now than your were 8 years ago Bryan? If so, then you are definately on of the lucky few.

[Guest Truthteller]

That must explain their willingness to work government jobs, stay on the dole, and vote and (for blacks) vote like a bloc for Democrats ever since LBJ.

Finally, someone tells it like it is. The blacks vote for Democrats because they want to stay on the dole. I'm sure this will get me called a racist, but no one can deny that blacks get most of the money for welfare. One study shows that 5 out of 6 blacks have been on welfare at some point in their lives. That's over 90%!! Republicans will shut down the welfare nanny state and they'd have to get a job like the rest of us.

Seriously, you're trying to turn the fractured constituency of the Democratic Party into an argument for intellectual enlightenment. Conservative voters tend to be better informed than Democrats. Democrats are made up of a motley coalition of labor unions, lawyers, hippies and blacks (just to name some of the bigger groupings, and I guarantee that the Union of Black Hippie Lawyers leans to the left).

If liberals were better informed they'd be conservatives.

Sure there is. But like I said, conservative voters tend to be better informed than liberals and no matter what you say about conservatives, that Obama video looks like mindless zombified chanting.

You know who else mindlessly chanted slogans? The nazis!! The problem with these people and thier slavish devotion to Osama Hussain is that if they elect him they'll let him get away with anything!! That will lead us to a fascist state.

[Guest Truthteller]

I find it ironc that you said "unthinking voters" would put Obama in office. Would that be the same voters who gave us 8 years of George Bush? Are you better off now than your were 8 years ago Bryan? If so, then you are definately on of the lucky few.

Have you been attacked by terrorists lately? There's your answer. Since Clinton let 9/11 happen Bush has kept us safe. If the surrender monkeys take control of Congress and the presidency (which they won't) you can expect another 9/11.

[Guest Keith]

Finally, someone tells it like it is. The blacks vote for Democrats because they want to stay on the dole. I'm sure this will get me called a racist, but no one can deny that blacks get most of the money for welfare. One study shows that 5 out of 6 blacks have been on welfare at some point in their lives. That's over 90%!! Republicans will shut down the welfare nanny state and they'd have to get a job like the rest of us.

If liberals were better informed they'd be conservatives.

You know who else mindlessly chanted slogans? The nazis!! The problem with these people and thier slavish devotion to Osama Hussain is that if they elect him they'll let him get away with anything!! That will lead us to a fascist state.

You have got to be shittin' me! I've got news for you skippy. We already live in a facist state and your boy George has gotten away with more than any president ever. There's the old saying "gotten away with murder". Well, if the shoe fits......

[Guest Guest]

Have you been attacked by terrorists lately? There's your answer. Since Clinton let 9/11 happen Bush has kept us safe.

It wasn't Clinton who received the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike America" and did nothing about it. That was Bush, lying punk.

If the surrender monkeys take control of Congress and the presidency (which they won't) you can expect another 9/11.

Hahahaha. Bet you wish your stupid little fear-mongering worked on the smart ones, don't you? Sorry, that nonsense only works on your stupid neocon buddies.

Fact: There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before it was invaded on Bush's command.

Fact: The invasion of Iraq has made the US LESS SAFE than it was before; our occupation of Iraq is the fuel that Al Qaeda members are using to recruit more and more people to organize and launch more attacks on this country.

It's all the Bush administration's fault for ignoring the actual terrorist Osama Bin Laden and going after a man and a country that NEVER ATTACKED US.

[WilliamK]

One study shows that 5 out of 6 blacks have been on welfare at some point in their lives. That's over 90%!!

5 out of 6 is not > 90%, no matter how many exclamation marks you append.

[Guest Guest]

Have you been attacked by terrorists lately? There's your answer. Since Clinton let 9/11 happen Bush has kept us safe. If the surrender monkeys take control of Congress and the presidency (which they won't) you can expect another 9/11.

WOW! Your head's been up your butt so long and so far you don't even know who's watch the 9/11 attacls took place on, the attacks the administration was warned about and ignored the warnings.

Try and catch up with facts instead of your drug laced imagination.

[Guest Keith]

Have you been attacked by terrorists lately? There's your answer. Since Clinton let 9/11 happen Bush has kept us safe. If the surrender monkeys take control of Congress and the presidency (which they won't) you can expect another 9/11.

I've got three words for you.....no, not those three. These three "Presidential Daily Briefing" GW got it and did nothing with it. So if you want to blame 9/11 on anyone you need to lay it at GW's tootsies. Oh, and Bin Laden of course. President Bush has stated publically that he really doesn't care or think about him anymore. Bush is a corporate patsy yet the man could f**k up a train wreck. You refuse to see it. Truthteller? Yeah right.

[Guest Guest]

Finally, someone tells it like it is. The blacks vote for Democrats because they want to stay on the dole. I'm sure this will get me called a racist, but no one can deny that blacks get most of the money for welfare. One study shows that 5 out of 6 blacks have been on welfare at some point in their lives. That's over 90%!! Republicans will shut down the welfare nanny state and they'd have to get a job like the rest of us.

If liberals were better informed they'd be conservatives.

You know who else mindlessly chanted slogans? The nazis!! The problem with these people and thier slavish devotion to Osama Hussain is that if they elect him they'll let him get away with anything!! That will lead us to a fascist state.

Lighten up, guys. "Truthteller" is obviously pulling a Colbert.

[Guest Guest]

I've got three words for you.....no, not those three. These three "Presidential Daily Briefing" GW got it and did nothing with it. So if you want to blame 9/11 on anyone you need to lay it at GW's tootsies. Oh, and Bin Laden of course. President Bush has stated publically that he really doesn't care or think about him anymore. Bush is a corporate patsy yet the man could f**k up a train wreck. You refuse to see it. Truthteller? Yeah right.

No matter how you look at it BushSpeak still sounds like BS!

If The Shrub retires to the ol' ranch and falls off a horse it'll somehow be blamed on Clinton, amazing powers that man has

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've got three words for you.....no, not those three. These three "Presidential Daily Briefing" GW got it and did nothing with it. So if you want to blame 9/11 on anyone you need to lay it at GW's tootsies. Oh, and Bin Laden of course. President Bush has stated publically that he really doesn't care or think about him anymore. Bush is a corporate patsy yet the man could f**k up a train wreck. You refuse to see it. Truthteller? Yeah right.

I've got three words for you ......Clinton Effed Up. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to Clinton . The Sudanese had Bin Laden in custody and offered

to turn him over to the U.S. Clinton refused to take him, the Sudanese released him . Bin Laden thanked the U.S. with 9/11.

This is a clear example of why we cannot have a bleeding-heart liberal as President in this time of world terrorism. The thought of electing another

bleeding-heart Senator, who will take advice from Rev. Wright, must have the terrorists licking their chops. Hussain Obama will open our borders,

cut our military and raise taxes to afford his spending plans. Another 9/11 or worse would be on the horizon. The last vision we'll all see as we go up

in smoke will be Hussain's nice smile.

[Guest Keith]

I've got three words for you ......Clinton Effed Up. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to Clinton . The Sudanese had Bin Laden in custody and offered

to turn him over to the U.S. Clinton refused to take him, the Sudanese released him . Bin Laden thanked the U.S. with 9/11.

This is a clear example of why we cannot have a bleeding-heart liberal as President in this time of world terrorism. The thought of electing another

bleeding-heart Senator, who will take advice from Rev. Wright, must have the terrorists licking their chops. Hussain Obama will open our borders,

cut our military and raise taxes to afford his spending plans. Another 9/11 or worse would be on the horizon. The last vision we'll all see as we go up

in smoke will be Hussain's nice smile.

Geez! You're right! I've never thought of it that way! Everything over the past 8 years is not Georges fault, it's Bill's! Had GW ever owned up to anything?

[Bryan]

It wasn't Clinton who received the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike America" and did nothing about it. That was Bush, lying punk.

... though the tentative information about hijacking planes included in that memo was collected during Clinton's tenure.

Hahahaha. Bet you wish your stupid little fear-mongering worked on the smart ones, don't you? Sorry, that nonsense only works on your stupid neocon buddies.

Fact: There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before it was invaded on Bush's command.

I don't think you can know that, but feel free to connect us to your mountain of evidence.

Fact: The invasion of Iraq has made the US LESS SAFE than it was before; our occupation of Iraq is the fuel that Al Qaeda members are using to recruit more and more people to organize and launch more attacks on this country.

I'm sure that pointing to a victory over the U.S. in Iraq would prove utterly disinteresting to potential terrorist recruits.

BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.

America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God. We experienced combat against the Russians for 10 years, from 1979 to 1989, thanks be to God. Then we continued against the communists in Afghanistan. Today, we're at the end of our second week. There is no comparison between the two battles, between this group and that. We pray to God to give us his support and to make America ever more reluctant. God is capable of that.

It's all the Bush administration's fault for ignoring the actual terrorist Osama Bin Laden and going after a man and a country that NEVER ATTACKED US.

If you overlook Iraq's almost-daily attempts to shoot down our planes in the no-fly zone implemented as part of the Gulf War ceasefire, I suppose. Shooting at somebody isn't really attacking them, though.

Right?

[Guest Guest]

I've got three words for you ......Clinton Effed Up. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to Clinton. The Sudanese had Bin Laden in custody and offered to turn him over to the U.S. Clinton refused to take him, the Sudanese released him. Bin Laden thanked the U.S. with 9/11. This is a clear example of why we cannot have a bleeding-heart liberal as President in this time of world terrorism. The thought of electing another bleeding-heart Senator, who will take advice from Rev. Wright, must have the terrorists licking their chops. Hussain Obama will open our borders, cut our military and raise taxes to afford his spending plans. Another 9/11 or worse would be on the horizon. The last vision we'll all see as we go up in smoke will be Hussain's nice smile.

You claim Clinton F'd up about everything, but the fact remains that Bush got a memo a few weeks before 9/11 and ignored it. The accounts of Sudanese offer to arrest bin Laden and turn him over are suspect at best. Where is the proof that they could actually have arrested him and turned him over? If it's true, then blame Clinton, but that has nothing to do with Obama, and it isn't an all-purpose answer for everything that happens now - or anything that happens now for that matter.

You're a disrespectful and bigoted person. That's no revelation, but I wish you understood what being an American means. I also wish you knew how to use your keyboard as something more advanced than an old manual typewriter.

[Bryan]

You know it's interesting. All of the people here criticizing Obama for the statements made by his pastor seem to have short memories.

More likely they just know the difference between endorsement and mentoring. Obamazombies are expert at ignoring the distinction, it appears.

Hey! It looks a like a school of red herrings is swimming our way!

So lets look at some of the Republican Candidates of the past and present. The 9/11 kid's priest has been accused by the grand jury of molesting several children. Have or did we hear Rudy criticize th

at priest?

What criticism would be appropriate in the wake of unproven accusations, in your opinion?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/1...ani-defend.html

Mitt Romney's Mormon Church for years vilified african americans by discriminating against them. Did he apologize for that behavior?

Was Romney responsible for actions of the Mormon church that occurred before he was born? I may have some apologizing to do myself if that's the case. Will atheists apologize for the millions killed by Stalin and Mao, I wonder?

Jerry Fallwell said america had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. Any republican politician condemn that remark?

Yes, and Falwell himself apologized for the remark very soon afterward.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=13492

Pat Robertson believes that Ugo Chavez should be executed. Didn't hear anyone on here denounce him.

Coleman and Martinez got around to it, not that you'd have noticed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...d8&refer=us

the Reverend Hagee, one of Mc Cains spiritual advisors calls the catholic church the great whores.

Hagee is not one of McCain's spiritual advisers, and Hagee denies identifying the RCC as such with the great whore of Babylon. Maybe you should employ your vast research skills and show where he did so. I hear Ask.com is a fantastic resource.

He goes on to say that the anti christ will arise out of europe and the he will be jewish leading us to armagedden. Has Mc Cain criticised those remarks or distanced himself from Hagee. No he appears on stage with him gladly accepting his endorsement. In fact, he said he was proud of the endorsement.

Meh. You've tossed truth and half-truth into a Waring blender and put it on high.

First, it's not clear why it should be controversial or shocking that the antichrist would come out of Europe and be of Jewish ancestry. Jewish ancestry would fall in line with the parallel between christ and antichrist. What's supposed to be the big deal about that?

Second, McCain did make clear that he and Hagee had disagreements.

“I think it’s important to note that Pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes,” McCain told reporters today after a town hall meeting

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/29/po...ry3892847.shtml

The theres the Reverend Parsley. Another Mc Cain spiritual advisor. He believes that America was founded to kill muslims.

Citation, please?

So the question is, when is Mc Cain going to give a speech condemning his spiritual advisors.

Seems like you'd be happy if McCain would embrace both men while saying that the issues are important and that he'll unite everyone when he gets in office. No?

Because religion has become so divisive over the years is the main reason I don't attend church any more. Sadly, you out there who subscribe to the old politics of hate won't understand Obamas speech. But I hope that at-least now that we know some of the other sides spiritual thinking, maybe some of you who are catholic or muslim will be as offended by what these pastors have said and demand Mc Cain throw them under the bus like you want Barack to do to the Reverend Wright.

Mentor for almost twenty years.

Now sweep that back under the rug where it belongs, won't you?