Why do you say that? The American public elected a guy who went to a church for 20 years where the pastor preached racist hateful sermons weekly? The president obviously is very close to the hatemonger as the Rev Wright not only married the president but baptised his children. If the country can elect such filth, surely they can't be bothered by a mormon.

Is that any different from republicans who cuddle up with fundamentalists like Pat Roberson, who spews anti-gay hatred?

Last time I checked, the law allows to hate any particular group, gays including, as long as you don't go medieval on them or incite others to do so. And the latter is precisely what Obama does with his "they bring the knife, we bring the gun" rhetoric.

Well then I guess I'm a little confused why Obama deserves such criticism for associating with a preacher who some consider is guilty of hatemongering... yet when I point out that republican presidents have also associated with preachers who are also guilty of a different type of hatemongering, then it's; "oh well, it's their right to hate whomever they want". It seems that blind partisanship causes you to selectively choose when hatemongering is wrong.

Pat Robertson hates gays; I don't care because I'm not one. Rev. Wright hates America; I do care because live there. See the difference?

Oh, and by the way, could you please name a Republican pol who attended Pat Robertson's sermons for 20 years, or perhaps was married by him?

So we should only be concerned with the rights of groups of people if we're members of that group??? I'm glad everyone doesn't think like you do, otherwise we'd still have slavery in this country.

People who attend churches don't necessarily agree with everything the leaders of the church says. Should we conclude that everyone who attends a Catholic church is anti-women since the Pope allows no women in positions of authority? And if you conculde that Rev Wright "hates America" because he has been critical of some of America's policies during certain times, then that would mean that the Tea Party also hates America.

Max Maybe you have heard these before.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Or this.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee

Mr. Grant, but you *are* a Socialist...

Mr./Ms. Hookerman, I see you conveniently skipped over my other question, so I'll repeat it. For 20 years, Obama was a member of Rev. Wright's congregation. Were any prominent Republicans a part of Rev. Robertson's congregation? You used the word "huddled" but I didn't believe I've seen pictures of the Reverend huddling with anyone, so you might want to elaborate.

As for your argument, I had a good laugh out of it. Catholics are anti-women because they don't promote them? Apparently, so is your beloved Democrat Party - they had a chance in 2008, didn't they?

Bush Jr and Sr had Pat Robertson at the White House as a guest. Who would you consider me closer to... a guy who happens to preach at the church I attend, or a person I've actually invited into my house to break bread with? Obama has stated many times that he's had no real relationship with Wright, and nothing has been brought forward to dispute this.

LOL, I remember Clinton saying that he had no relationship with "that woman". Obama seems to have joined the club. As for Bushes, do any of them run for office this cycle? Good riddance and, to quote Gillette ads, "No More Bush!"

In essence what Comrade Grant is saying, and I agree with him, is that "they" took the socialists away because the trade unions didn't defend the socialists, and "they" took the trade unions away because the Jews didn't defend the trade unions, and "they" took the Jews away because Comrade Grant didn't defend the Jews. As a self loathing Jew, I can understand his point.

Herr Marx, I was fortunately educated outside American public school system, and am therefore familiar with this famous quote. I also appreciated the irony of a Christian priest's quote being invoked by a member of an anti-Christian party. And I'm actually quite supportive of gay rights - as long as they don't trample on MY rights, which they routinely do.

Barry's failed health plan will be ruled unconstitutional in the near future. Watch the market soar once its over for Barry.

Romney's campaign. Now, remind me who pays for Obama's trips to his campaign spots?

Think it's the same people who pay for everything including all of X-President Bush's multitude of vacations

One who lives in glass castles shouldn't be throwing rocks. Mormonism is about as grounded in reality as the story of a long-haired jobless dude who could walk on water.

Mormonism and Scientology have particularly bad rap, true that, and the likely reason is that "South Park" aced an episode about each of them. Too bad the channel did not let them run one about Islam; rumor had it that the wrist slap came from the White House squatter-in-chief himself.

I hardly believe that South Park will have any influence on the election of Romney. I don't care what a persons religious belief system is as long as it is separate from Government. I am much more troubled by his belief that Corporations are people and that forclosures should be handled by a free market and letting people lose their homes to investors.

Welcome to reality, Mr. Grant. The only reason you have to live with Citizens United v FEC verdict is because your Dem comrades got greedy and wanted to block corporate contributions while allowing same for the unions. You would, of course, wish that foreclosures be handled by a union-appointed committee that gets to distribute relief funds along the party lines; fortunately, the country is not THAT insane, as yet. As for the South Park, you'd be surprised how influential they are, particularly on side issues of which an average voter would know squat about otherwise.

I was raised Catholic. Some could make the argument that since Catholics are supposed to willingly tithe 10 % or their hard-earned income to support a religious leader that lives in his own city with hundreds of servants at his beacon call, then Catholicism is a definite cult (and that's not even touching on all the money going to fight the sex abuse scandals). Don't kids yourself... any religion can be considered a 'cult'.

If you were an adult you would use your real name. I find that many of the comments of the people trying to win the Republican Nomination to be as silly as your Easter Bunny example. 9-9-9. Corporations are people too, Social Security is a Ponzi, ect.ect.

Herman Cain's foreign policy baggage is awfully thin, and it shows. Forcing a loyalty oath on Muslims is pointless: according to Quran, lying to a kaffir is a virtue.

There's a bigger problem... it's unconstitutional. Any presidential candidate who doesn't know the basics of the U.S. Constitution is a real big risk.

It is constitutional if applied equally to all elected officials. In fact, I'd love to see such oath mandated - and ENFORCED - for all elected officials, faith affiliation notwithstanding.

Elected officials do take an oath... to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. What more loyalty would you need than that?

You kinda missed the word "enforced", didn't you?