Reply #178: No I hate to say it, but it appears that the other poster is correct. [View All]

[musicblind]

This is certainly saying something in opposition about another candidate.

Also, according to webster. Here is their definition of Endorse. "to approve openly"

Now it is clear via the manner in which the Reverand spoke that he does approve openly of Obama as a black candidate much more so than he does Hillary as the white candidate. He has clearly with opposition to Hillary (a candidate) and her perceived attitude.

You are making yourself look bad in this argument by constantly ignoring the valid information, and valid quote, provided to you by the other poster. Instead you keep arguing your same talking points by claiming "there is nothing illegal about it" or "you are wrong" when the other poster has clearly demonstrated why that quote is illegal and has proven that they are not wrong.

You can merely choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence (do not asking for it again, because it has been shown to you) or accept the evidence.

It is similar to this:

Person 1: The sky is blue.
Person 2: No it's not, prove it.
Person 1: Here, see, look up, it's a blue sky.
Person 2: You didn't prove anything. I asked you to prove it.
Person 1: No seriously, look up! The sky is blue!
Person 2: But what is the meaning of blue? How do you know that I see the color blue as blue? You have proven nothing.
Person 1: What?


I'm not trying to be mean, so if I am being mean I apologize to you. I certainly respect you as a poster and respect your opinions. I am just trying to demonstrate the way this discussion is coming off. It is being very facetious to look at the Rev.'s quote and claim that he has expressed no approval or disapproval of either candidate. And seeing as the definition of endorse is to "approve openly" according to webster ....