I'm all for people talking about Wright all they want in this election, so long as the Mormon church's history of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are on the table. I can dance at any tempo. I don't care if the rules are Marquess of Queensbury or Last Man Standing. I just don't want to hear [itch bay]ing and whining after the rules of engagement are set.
Remember the reporting of Bush going AWOL that was backed by a document; later proven to be a forgery. Dan Rather never backed off.
I don't think anyone would be on obama if Wrights church 200 years ago was racist. Now you could safetly argue the current mormon church is sexist and homophobic. As an aside, I give you big credit for being an individual and calling BS where you see it. My political views are somewhat similar to yours, but I'm much more partisan.
When do you think the Mormon church's ban on interracial marriage ended? Hint 1-Not 200 years ago. Hint 2-Mittens had long been a member in good standing.
I know it was fairly recent, but not that recent until I googled it. My personal opinion is that anything recent is fair game. Or at least fair game for the media. An individual can make whatever decision they want.
I did, but to a degree my point still stands. What you think is negative may be appealing to others. What do you propose to "fix" the issue? Gov't control? Fairness Doctrine? In a sense, this issue is the free market in practice. Is that not a staple of conservatism? If enough folks choose to not tune in costing money, things will change.
News companies are in it for making money. That works for nbc or fox. That doesn't mean the underlying reporters don't have a bias.
CBS only acted when left with little recourse, otherwise. In fact, they defended the story for some time, IIRC. I'm not big on post-conviction confessions, personally.
Not worried about fixing it. Got to hope people are smart enough to see through stuff. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that didn't view an association with Bill Ayers as a negative.
Maybe, but there are some that do not. I find Mitt's association with the Mormon Church and it's stances equally damning if not moreso.
In fact, I'll go as far as saying that no Conservative Christian Protestant or Catholic that votes based on religious principles can vote for him in good conscious.
And do we now all agree that the mainstream media is not only decidedly liberal, but as the Daily Caller perfectly exposed, have actively colluded to affect the reporting of news simply to advance their own personal political beliefs? I didn't catch any of the normal liberals denying that report, and wonder if their silence is acceptance. So, I ask.
The consumer did decide to reject the mainstream news several years ago, and emphatically. I believe it's now called, "Fox News", and it has housed the rest almost since its inception.
It's America. I have the right to choose what I think is important. As a general rule, I do not vote based off religion. In this case, the tenents of Mormonism are so repugnant to me and have had such a huge influence on his life, I think it's important. You may find that a double standard, but that's fine. If Romney were a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, or any other religion Christian or not, I still would not vote for him. His policies are not in line with my beliefs in the political realm. See my post following the one you quoted. That's where I was going with that.
