Wait, I'm not done with you - I do pay more attention to my Presidential choices because they affect the fate of our nation - I don't pay attention to the bleating of people who have their panties in a knot about how they're so oppressed by the mean things that black man said, waaah waaah - because it's just disgusting.  You should be ashamed of yourself for complaining about this. 

And, having said that, I'm wrong again - not about you being disgusting - but by ignoring you for it - because that was the thrust of Obama's speach the other day - that we can't just turn our backs on this sort of thing - we need to have a discussion about these issues.

So.  I'll give it a try.  Tell me how this whole preacher incident has affected you.  Because, and I know this taints the talk, but I have to say up front - it meant nothing to me.  Sounds like a lot of talk I've heard before, and talk that itsn't hurting anyone, but was rather a venting of frustration at the speakers oppresssors.  But you called it "hate-speach".   Are you equating it with the oppression of minorities?  Do you feel, believe, that someone somewhere is hurt or oppressed by this speach?  And let's take it to the next level - let's say you're right, and people will not be allowed to say such thing.  Let's say a guy gets his ass kicked - is he not allowed to yell at the guy who beat him up and tell him to go "f*ck himeself"? 

Where are you coming from?

Mike, I'm not going to try to speak for Scott, but let me tell you how this whole preacher incident has affected me.  I'm a registered Independent, but I've been looking close at Obama.  I generally like what he says and think that after some more experience in federal politics (or even in higher state government, say as Govenor) he would be an excellent candidate for President.  He already made some foreign policy statements that made me cringe such as unrestricted talking to countries considered enemies and invading countries that are friends.

However, learning more about the church he has gone to for over 20 years I'm having serious doubts.  Even if the videos that have come out are isolated incidents, they are still pretty hate filled.  Then Obama claims to have never heard Wright say such things.  After 20+ years Obama just happened to be out on those days?   Then he backpedals and says that he heard some of those things, but disagreed with them.  My question still would be, "if you knew he said such things, why would you still be a member of that church and why would you have Wright on your campaign committee"?

So, it boils down to what kind of judgement does Obama have?  This incident alone is making a lot of people ask that question.

Isn't this, like, a HUGE church?  You mean there's THAT many people we can simply WRITE OFF as being unqualified for office?  Some of those people are doubtless lawyers, teachers, doctors, cops - are THEY unfit for their jobs?

McCain sought and accepted the endorsement of a religion that has been systematically molesting children for centuries.  Let's exile him!

"The Republican leaders go to churches or listen to leaders that preach much worse things yet nobody complains. Falwell? Robertson?"
If McCain (using him because he will be the Republican nominee) went to Falwell's or Robertson's church, then yes I would complain, as would many others. 

"I just find the whole thing funny, from a Canadian viewpoint. Nobody in Canada really cares about the religious affiliation of their Prime Ministers. I think Cretian was a devout Catholic but I am not sure. Who cares?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think Canadians actually voted for their PM.  Don't you vote for the party, and then the party leadership selects the PM?

"McCain sought and accepted the endorsement of a religion that has been systematically molesting children for centuries.  Let's exile him!"
The current discussion isn't about a religion.  It's about a specific church and it's minister.  Also, I don't ever remember hearing anything about a Catholic preacher (if that's the correct term for the religion) endorsing child molestation in any way.

Let's take church and religion out of this for a second.  What if Obama were a member of a social organization for 20+ years and had been paying his dues the whole time.  Then it comes out that the leader of that organization was making ths same type of "U-S-of-KKK-A" and other statements, would Obama get a pass then?

OK, thanks for the explanation.  Can I assume the procedure is only for the PM position and not for local/provencial elections?  One of the reasons for the primary process in the US is not only for the Presidential race, but for many of the local and state elections.  Here in North Carolina, since I'm Independent, I can choose if I want to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary.  Otherwise, Republicans can only vote in the Republican primary, and Democrats in the Democrat primary.  It is a shame we only have 2 viable parties to vote for.  Yeah, there are other parties, but generally a vote for any of them ends up being a wasted vote around here.

edited because I forgot a word

"Let's take church and religion out of this for a second.  "

You can't. Churches and religions have been given a pass for forever. There are churches all over where people sit through thundering sermons about whatever the preacher thinks is right and wrong and then they leave and (for better or worse) ignore the parts they don't like. Much easier than being alienated from their community for publicly denouncing the priest at every opportunity.

Do you really think that if a pro-choice candidate sits through a "pro-life" sermon by his pastor, the first thing he should do is run to the press and say "I'm quitting this church because the pastor disagrees with me"? Or if the priest argues against gay marriage, contraceptives, or the war in Iraq?

Sure, we can say that Obama believes everything Reverend Wright does, but what does that say for the political views of the other candidates?

If the nominations on each side come down to  Reverend Wright, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or whichever controversial priest Clinton has listened to without denouncing, which one is most qualified to be president? (Oh, wait, you're not voting for their priests, you're voting for the politician.)

Why, if we took that stuff seriously, atheists wouldn't have anybody to vote for. (at least not in America. We're a bit more fortunate in that respect in Europe.)

Also, I don't ever remember hearing anything about a Catholic preacher (if that's the correct term for the religion) endorsing child molestation in any way.

-------------------------------------

Wait, wait, wait a second - doesn't just BEING there IMPLY an endorsement?  I thought that was the whole to-do?

What it comes down to is this: there are plenty of good reasons to vote for or not for a candidate.  the ones that get pushed on you, the ones like this, are the "sexy" reasons.  They are not real reasons.  The people who want this to mean something to you are enemies of getting anything done.  They want you to watch American Idol and let them continue to push ridiculous shit on you.

Obama is looking to do a 180 on our foreign policy.  THAT IS IMPORTANT.  If you think that's a good idea, like me, then you have a real, honest inclination to vote for him.  If you think that's a horrible idea, as many do, even people who aren't Bush-o-philes, then you have a real, honest inclination to vote for someone else.  If you are basing your vote on what their preacher's like, or whether they have a hot wife like Kucinich, or whether their husband makes you ill like Clinton, or whether they have the best nickname, you're part of the problem.

If I told you i was voting for someone because they were an atheist, you'd call me a numbskull (disclaimer: you may still call me a numbskull, but not for that).  It's this ancillary SHIT that gets us, got us, and keeps us in this mess.  98% re-election rate for a loser Congress.  Isn't it time we spit out what they keep spoon-feeding us between car commercials?