Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
Sorry aeson, yes I'm making some assumptions here, but I've been watching his crap here in Illinois for quite awhile now and this is just so consistent with what he's done in the past, my assumptions aren't really a stretch. Everyone else can believe his CHANGE and INNOCENT approach, but he's just your typical lying chicago politician. Of course this doesn't make him a lesser person than Hillary or McCain, it just makes him better at it. So I expect him to be more clever about it. SO this one surprised me.

That doesn't make sense. Surprise is when what you'd assume is the case isn't the case. Yet you are surprised at his action based on your assumption that his action was intentional. If you assume he'd intentionally do such a thing, why does it surprise you that he'd do such a thing?

The reference to Auschwitz is obviously incorrect. It's a statement which is easily shown as incorrect. No one the least bit competent at spinning lies would touch such a thing intentionally. Either you would expect him to avoid lying about easily verified facts, or you wouldn't expect him to be clever about spinning his lies. Assuming both is inane.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aeson

Instead of dealing with Obama's position on PTSD, you focus on the name of the concentration camp and your wild speculation about his nefarious plot to refer to the wrong concentration camp.

Am I the only one who finds this whole thing ridiculous.

Obama said his relative was a hero who was involved in the liberation of Auschwitz, but this is a dirty liberal lie since his relative was a hero who liberated some other Nazi camp that was equally horrible.

It's like if I told everyone I'd bedded Angelina Jolie, but someone complained that I said we'd done it 30 times when IN FACT we'd only done it 29 times. Oh noes...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He might be a NBC viewer, Aeson.

Ignorance is no excuse for being wrong.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As for Aeson's point, if Obama couldn't be bothered to care about his story, why should we?

Exactly. The story shouldn't matter one bit.

His proposal for dealing with PTSD is important. (Whether you agree with it or not.)

[Zkribbler]

Obama was right both times.

Iran is a grave threat...to the stability of the region. It is funding, arming and probably training the Shia militias and is trying to destablize the elected government in Iraq.

However, Iran is a pip squeak country on the other side of the world with no capablity to project its power to us. In comparison to the CCCP's ability to launch WWIII, bring about a nuclear winter, and end human life of Earth, Iran is nothing.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Am I the only one who finds this whole thing ridiculous.

Um... why did you quote me? I've been rather clear that I find the "issue" a ridiculous one.

[Patroklos]

We haven't heard anything about the Rev lately. No mention of any "bitter" comments. Nope. The media just gives Obama a pass on everything.

The funny thing about the bitter comment was that I didn't see the Olbermans/Courics/Blitzs'/Matthews critisising Obama at all, what I heard them do was give him a pass personally and report Clinton's critisism of Obama.

This was mostly the case with the Wright issue too. You can almost see the talking heads cringe when they are grudingly forced to personally admit Obama stumbled at anything. That is of course followed by the obligatory "this shouldn't be an issue, but some demographics might think so" comment.

Instead of dealing with Obama's position on PTSD, you focus on the name of the concentration camp and your wild speculation about his nefarious plot to refer to the wrong concentration camp.

McCain has Obama trumpted in everything military, including veterans affairs/PTSD. Obama's experiance and position on these issues is so weak and pandering laden it doesn't matter what he says.

That is not ignoring an issue, that is accepting the obvious that McCain has this issue in his pocket.

That being said, all that is left to comment on is Obama's pathetic pandering tactics.

It's a statement which is easily shown as incorrect. No one the least bit competent at spinning lies would touch such a thing intentionally.

Selma. Even if you believe his transparent back track on that one, it just reduces the whole event to another purposeful manipulation of simple fact to pander to a specific group (he was speaking in Selma).

His proposal for dealing with PTSD is important. (Whether you agree with it or not.)

No, its not important. His insinuation that he would be a better candidate for veterans interests is laughable. What the hell does Obama know about veterans issues that McCain doesn't? Am I supposed to ignore McCain's first hand experiance at serving his country in the most demanding of capacity because Obama had a great uncle who did something worthwhile? THAT is the ridicuouls thing here.

He needs to leave this issue alone.

[Aeson]

“That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev,” he said, adding, “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela—these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”

Highlighted: sentence fragment that was dropped in DD's "quote".

It's true that Iran does not pose a threat like the Soviet Union did. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. We were one button push away from mutually assured destruction. Iran does not pose such a threat to us.

That is not incompatible with saying that Iran is a "grave threat". They certainly have the capability of causing us harm.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The funny thing about the bitter comment was that I didn't see the Olbermans/Courics/Blitzs'/Matthews critisising Obama at all, what I heard them do was give him a pass personally and report Clinton's critisism of Obama.

This was mostly the case with the Wright issue too. You can almost see the talking heads cringe when they are grudingly forced to personally admit Obama stumbled at anything. That is of course followed by the obligatory "this shouldn't be an issue, but some demographics might think so" comment.

That's just your personal bias leading you to delusions that the entire media is out to get you and "your side". The media is not a monolithic single-viewpoint entity, and that you pretend it is only shows how ridiculously blind you are.

The fact is that the media addresses these issues. You said the media gives him a free pass. No free pass for you. You are wrong.

Selma.

"I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years."

I haven't heard that one. Please link your reference to that quote?

Further, I don't understand what relevance you seem to think such a quote has to my argument you quoted. Are you saying that such a statement is proof of competence at spinning lies? Are you saying it is an easily verifiable fact?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Aeson


Highlighted: sentence fragment that was dropped in DD's "quote".

It's true that Iran does not pose a threat like the Soviet Union did. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. We were one button push away from mutually assured destruction. Iran does not pose such a threat to us.

That is not incompatible with saying that Iran is a "grave threat". They certainly have the capability of causing us harm.

Rational thought.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

That's just your personal bias leading you to delusions that the entire media is out to get you and "your side". The media is not a monolithic single-viewpoint entity, and that you pretend it is only shows how ridiculously blind you are.

Clinton is my side?

The fact is that the media addresses these issues. You said the media gives him a free pass. No free pass for you. You are wrong.

You realize you are a walking, talking proof of what I say. Apply your thought process.

I haven't heard that one. Please link your reference to that quote?

You want a quote of Obama not having heard Wright's vitriol before the youtube videos

Aeson

Actually I edited out because it only proved my point round about, ie that Obama willingly alters his past to suit his purpose.

That opposed to someone like McCain, which proudly displays his past in excruciatingly painful, factual detail.

I will take this time to point out again that I don’t really care that he changed his facts, but that he brought them up in the first place and his reason for doing so. You say what his uncle did doesn’t matter. I agree. Tell that to Obama.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No, its not important.

Ok. Thanks for telling us that you do not think PTSD's effect on our troops is an important issue. Sorry, but I disagree.

I think any presidential candidate should detail what they would do in regards to as many issues as possible. How are we to decide otherwise between candidates if they don't address their stance on issues? You don't have to agree with their stance, but to pretend that they shouldn't present their stance is asinine.

[Patroklos]

Ok. Thanks for telling us that you do not think PTSD's effect on our troops is an important issue. Sorry, but I disagree.

Wow, when did you become such a troll? First personal insults, and now quote cutting.

I said Obama's opinion is unimportant in light of McCain's far superior stance on the matter. Obama has no traction here, he will not serve veterns better no will he convince that demographic he will.

I think any presidential candidate should detail what they would do in regards to as many issues as possible. How are we to decide otherwise between candidates if they don't address their stance on issues? You don't have to agree with their stance, but to pretend that they shouldn't present their stance is asinine.

Then he should do that. But he didn't. He presented a false anecdote invoking one of the most emotion grabing words in history to add gravity to his person that doesn't belong there and otherwise wouldn't be there.

If his position on veteran's affairs alone was not enough to win him this issue, then spare us the hyped/manufactured/irrelevant personal reach out. Thats reserved for people who actually have a personal connection.

I hold the same position on Clinton's "plantation" remark and Romney's "my dad marched with MLK" remarks.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aeson


Um... why did you quote me? I've been rather clear that I find the "issue" a ridiculous one.

It's a typo. I meant to write "Are we", but in another tab I was looking at pictures of Rachael Ray in a keffiayeh and I was overcome with fear of a Muslim attack.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Clinton is my side?

Who said anything about Clinton? You obviously are against Obama, and feel the press is against your position by giving him a free pass on everything.

You realize you are a walking, talking proof of what I say. Apply your thought process.

I am not the media.

I certainly do not agree with the media in whole, and as such cannot be part of the monolithic single-viewpoint entity that you pretend is "the media".

I do not give Obama a free pass, and indeed won't even vote for him. (And have expressed as much on these boards already.)

So... um... yah... I'm proof of your point that the media gives Obama a free pass. That is... if we suspend reality and inject a hearty serving of stupid.

You want a quote of Obama not having heard Wright's vitriol before the youtube videos

No, I want a link to that direct quote you made. I had a feeling you couldn't provide one. The point of the request being to show that you were not providing a direct quote and instead paraphrasing with your own bias injected.

I will take this time to point out again that I don’t really care that he changed his facts, but that he brought them up in the first place and his reason for doing so. You say what his uncle did doesn’t matter. I agree. Tell that to Obama.

Obama doesn't post here as far as I know. If he did I'd certainly take advantage of the opportunity to grill him personally about his positions. Since he isn't here AFAIK, I grill you about your positions instead.

I would also like to point out that I think what his Uncle did does matter. It just isn't relevant to the value of Obama's position on PTSD.

As for his reason for doing so, that is simply conjecture on your part. Have fun with your crystal ball and tinfoil hat.