Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

Perfectly understandable.

[Patroklos]

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.

Because the "bitter" comment was an Obama/Clinton thing, even though it should have only been an Obama thing.

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

Ummmm, the reason he brought up that personal anecdote was not in question Aeson.

True or untrue, it was brought up for the purpose of providing a personal connection to his audience (that he doesn't have), thus lending credability to his position on the issue at hand (that he doesn't have).

As you have yourself pointed out, his great uncle's experiances are irrelevant in this regard. Amazingly, that is all I have ever really maintained here

Well, that and how pathetic the attempt makes him look, but that is opinion I guess, I guess you are more tolerant of shameful pandering than I.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251686/Barack_Obama_Denies_Ever_Hearing_Trinity_Church_Sp eak_Out_Against_The_U_S_

Your fellings fail you

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251686/Barack_Obama_Denies_Ever_Hearing_Trinity_Church_Speak_Out_Against_The_U_S_

Obama said that Wright's controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them at that time.

and the man himself....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23675485/

"I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew."

Though I have to say I didn't think you were the type to demand quotes of things you know the both us know to be true

And curse you for making me quote/read an Olbermann converstation

[Aeson]

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

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

"No, its not important." - Pat

That was your direct refutation of my statement. A statement which explicitly included the option of disagreeing with his proposal as well. By quoting it and saying it is not important, you not only are saying that he, as a presidential candidate, should not address the issue, but you are also saying that agreeing or disagreeing with his proposal is also not important.

As such you are saying that the it is not important to deal with PTSD at all. If that was not your intent, tough luck. For someone who makes up a "quote" to attribute to Obama, and won't accept a retraction of the statement, you certainly don't have a leg to stand on to request your own statements be given leeway when they aren't qualified properly.

I said Obama's opinion is unimportant in light of McCain's far superior stance on the matter.

You still have not given any argument to back up your claims in that regard.

Obama has no traction here, he will not serve veterns better no will he convince that demographic he will.

Obviously Obama could present a position which is useful. (Whether he has or not is of course debateable.) Your claims that he cannot are silly regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his present position.

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.

He was discussing PTSD. He mentioned his Uncle as a reference to what he was talking about. So what? We both "agree" it has no bearing, yet it's all you can focus on. You are placing far more importance on it than it deserves.

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.

It was Memorial Day, and he mentioned his family members who have served. OMG!!!!! the horror. You want to assume he is obfuscating the underlying issue by doing so, while you are using this silly "issue" as a smokescreen to avoid actually addressing the real issue. You do the same with McCain's record. You are a hypocrite, regardless of whether you are right or wrong about Obama's own intent. (Which is crystal ball work on your part.) You are doing what you deride Obama for doing. Obfuscating an issue with irrelevant and petting "issues".

It's funny that you fail to see this. You go on to promote McCain's positions based on his record too. McCain's record doesn't matter in regard to the validity of his proposals. Either a candidates' proposal is worthwhile, or it's not. That is entirely dependent on the nature of the proposal. The debate should be about the merits of of the proposal, but you want to make it about McCain's service record, and then take issue when Obama (presumably by you) does the same type of thing by trying to lend weight to his proposal with relating to relatives' experiences.

[Krill]

And this is why I never argue with Aeson. He has a much greater attention span than I do...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Aeson

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

There's no link because Obama never said he did not pay attention in church for 20 years.

The Rupugs have seized upon a 30-second sound bite and have been attempting to use it to represent a 30 year career.

Obama has said he wasn't in chuch when these words were uttered and was unaware of them until after Obama had already distanced himself from Rev. Wright because of other less inflamatory things Wright said.

Repugs have resurrected Senator Joe McCathy and are dancing his corpse for all its worth. They have nothing else.

[rah]

Originally posted by Aeson


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?

I was surprised that he would do it so badly, since he's shown to have been more clever in the past. There is no inconsistancy here. Even if people do something regularly you can still be surprised when they do it again badly.

I was saying it wasn't an accident since his staff has proved capable and would have caught this or questioned it, so it's easier for me to believe it was juiced for the occasion. And yes, it's just my opinion.
That's what forums are for, or do you honestly believe most people care about absolutes truth here.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
I was surprised that he would do it so badly, since he's shown to have been more clever in the past. There is no inconsistancy here. Even if people do something regularly you can still be surprised when they do it again badly.

But you are assuming that he did it intentionally so that you can be surprised by how badly he did it. That just doesn't make sense to me. If I assume someone is a certain way, and they act another way, I either question my assumption, or accept that there is some other factor involved.

I was saying it wasn't an accident since his staff has proved capable and would have caught this or questioned it, so it's easier for me to believe it was juiced for the occasion.

He was in mid-speech. If it was just coming up with the wrong name of a camp on the spur of the moment, how would they have caught that before it happened?

When he said 57 states did you assume that his staff intentionally had him say 57 states? Or didn't know there weren't 60 states? Sometimes people just misspeak. I don't see any reason to assume an intentional "gaffe" that is obviously going to hurt him. Certainly not if you are operating under the assumption that he's good at spinning those type of situations.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Patroklos

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 almost jumped up and down with glee when I saw the Democrat comments about McCain's opposition to the current GI bill. Please, please, please, (Dems) attack McCain over veterans affairs. Please.

[rah]

57 vs 50 states is a slip of the tongue. Naming the wrong prison camp is totally different. They don't sound similar.

[Patroklos]

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

"No, its not important." - Pat

And you cut it yet again. What I actually said...

"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."

In which the context of why it is unimportant given the context was clearly given by me.

That was your direct refutation of my statement. A statement which explicitly included the option of disagreeing with his proposal as well. By quoting it and saying it is not important, you not only are saying that he, as a presidential candidate, should not address the issue, but you are also saying that agreeing or disagreeing with his proposal is also not important.

No, I said it is unimportant because of exactly what he said. Did you actual listen to the speech? Everything he said amounted to "PTSD is bad." How is that relevant when everyone says that, most of all McCain? Its not like he made a policy speech, gave specifics on anything. What he said was unimportant in context, which I gave despite you having cut it out twice now.

As such you are saying that the it is not important to deal with PTSD at all. If that was not your intent, tough luck.

Oh what a tangled web you weave

No, I said what Obama has to say about it, and what he did say about it, is unimportant. He is, and always will be, inferior to McCain on this issue.

For someone who makes up a "quote" to attribute to Obama, and won't accept a retraction of the statement, you certainly don't have a leg to stand on to request your own statements be given leeway when they aren't qualified properly.

They are qualified just fine when you don't cut out the qualifier, which you did.

And I gave you the quote you asked for, even though we both know the exercise was unnecessary.

You still have not given any argument to back up your claims in that regard.

Unless you think McCain has a deep self hatred and no concern for his own interests, the burden of proof is on you actually.

Obviously Obama could present a position which is useful. (Whether he has or not is of course debateable.) Your claims that he cannot are silly regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his present position.

Well to bad he is not, and hasn't. Are you actually asking voters to discount every qualification McCain has and the fact that Obama has no qualification on the off chance Obama might pick a position that at best will mirror McCain? Is that honestly how you expect any demographic to reason on any issue?

He was discussing PTSD. He mentioned his Uncle as a reference to what he was talking about. So what? We both "agree" it has no bearing, yet it's all you can focus on. You are placing far more importance on it than it deserves.

If there was any substance in his PTSD remarks we could, but there was not. So we are left with his pandering.

It was Memorial Day, and he mentioned his family members who have served. OMG!!!!!

No, he didn't. Did you not catch that he doesn't have an uncle that liberated Auschwitz?

You want to assume he is obfuscating the underlying issue by doing so, while you are using this silly "issue" as a smokescreen to avoid actually addressing the real issue.

Again, who isn't addressing the real issue? It was addressed, to Obama's detriment, and we have moved on. Its not my fault Obama's PTSD comments were irrelevant, underwhelming and unimportant. Simply saying PTSD is bad is about as momentous as declaring murder bad, pedophilia bad, or Celine Dion is bad. Who the hell doesn't think that?

Of course as I have said in this thread many times now, while I consider his alteration of facts a valid criticism, it is not my serious criticism in this thread.

You do the same with McCain's record. You are a hypocrite, regardless of whether you are right or wrong about Obama's own intent. (Which is crystal ball work on your part.) You are doing what you deride Obama for doing. Obfuscating an issue with irrelevant and petting "issues".

Oh Jesus

It is not hypocritical, because I never said your personal experience is not relevant. That is the point Aeson, Obama doesn't have any personal experience in this realm.

Now if you want to maintain that McCain’s extensive personal experience in the military and as an active veteran, the very demographic in question, is unimportant to his understanding of what that demographic in question wants and needs feel free. Unfortunately veterans disagree with you.

As does pretty much everyone else.

It's funny that you fail to see this. You go on to promote McCain's positions based on his record too. McCain's record doesn't matter in regard to the validity of his proposals. Either a candidates' proposal is worthwhile, or it's not. That is entirely dependent on the nature of the proposal.

Thats right Aeson, HIS record. You might think different, but I usually vote for the person running, not their great uncle, and certainly not their imaginary uncle. Honestly, what interest/issue is someone's experience and record not important to?

The debate should be about the merits of of the proposal, but you want to make it about McCain's service record, and then take issue when Obama (presumably by you) does the same type of thing by trying to lend weight to his proposal with relating to relatives' experiences.

Again, you hit the nail on the head, McCain's personal record. HIS record. He doesn't have to run on the merits of a barely know relative with no relevance. If Obama had the experience I would definitely take that into account. He doesn't, and he shouldn't attempt to manufacture some, it will only backfire.

If you want to look at actual proposals, McCain's GI Bill spanks the one Obama voted for. That’s right, the one he voted for, not created. What proposals does he have again?

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold up Pat. When I say against "your side", that doesn't mean your side is everything that the entity is against.

Then you should have picked an example other than the "bitter" one, because that doesn't prove your point.

Let's say you are right about providing a personal connection to his audience. (A quite natural goal.) That is not necessarily done to lend credibility to his position..

Yes, it is. As any public speaker of leader knows, establishing a personal connection makes your audience more receptive to what you are saying.

What it does (if successful) is make people more comfortable with the politician, which may or may not influence their view of the politician's position.

Yeah, I just... said that. You just talked a circle around yourself.

You have done more than just maintained that position.

No, I have said several times now that while I suspect (that’s the word I used) he manipulated the facts purposely and that that is a valid criticism, my main criticism is his shameful and pathetic attempt at pandering. That criticism is made worse if he did lie, but it is still shameful and pathetic if he just mispoke.

I then went on to suggest that Obama leave these issues alone because he will never beat McCain in this sphere, every time he opens his mouth he plays into McCain's hand. He needs to move on to issues where he has the traction, or at least a possibility of overtaking McCain.

You have stated that Obama intentionally used the wrong name for the concentration camp involved, and was intentionally referring to the relative as Uncle to mislead people about the relationship (great-Uncle).

I said I "suspect" that.

"I suspect that was done on purpose to make the experiance closer and thus relevant to at least someone, probably not any of the veterans though."

Sort of like how you suspect he didn't.

As Zkrib points out, the actual quote you are refering to is not, "I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years." It is, "You know, frankly, I didn‘t. I wasn‘t in church during the time when the statements were made."

That’s not the quote I gave you, which you have conveniently left out of your post above and replaced with your own that says what you need it to say.

Obama's own words:

"I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew."

I bolded that to ward off any continued quibbling on your part, as he used "such" instead of "that," meaning he was not talking about those specific youtube comments but comments like them in general. Also note he said in private, so even in private Wright (who Obama himself labeled his mentor) didn’t let Obama know the opinions he has no problem shouting all over news circuit talk shows?

Even more damning, he goes on later in the same paragraph to say he has heard Rev. Wright say controversial things before, but the fact that he separated the two comments means he did not consider those on the level of the youtube comments.

So if you wish the quibble that that is not an exact copy of my obviously mocking paraphrase earlier fine, but above is proof above that Obama denies EVER hearing Wright say such comments despite relatively regular attendance for 20 years.

That aside, even the general gist of your quote doesn't hold up unless it is your assertion that Obama was in church for every one of the Rev's speeches. Seeing as Obama was a member of the church for 20 years, and probably not always present in the church (understandably ), and that the Rev has been a minister there for 30 years, this clearly cannot be the case

Quibble. He was a community leader using the church for street cred. As with most community leaders, they make it a point to be seen at church every week. But hey, I suppose it is possible he just happened to not be there for Wright's admittedly often spouted rhetoric. Actually, it really isn't.

[Arrian]

Patroklos,

Aeson's point (or rather one of them - the only one I care to get involved in) is that what matters is the candidates respective policy positions. Which policy is better, on the merits? That question doesn't really have anything to do with their respective experience (or lack thereof) in uniform. Is McCain right, or is Obama right? All else is fluff (including talking about uncles and camps).

You appear to be arguing that McCain's stance on the issue is superior because McCain has experience in uniform. That doesn't really follow. As I understand it, there actually is a basis for saying McCain's stance is better... hell, I think you've even made the argument in another thread. THAT is what matters. Not the (flubbed) fluff.

edit: ah, you did mention that you believe McCain's proposal is better. Very well - that's what matters.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Aeson's point (or rather one of them - the only one I care to get involved in) is that what matters is the candidates respective policy positions.

I agreed with him that their positions matter, but that is not all that matters.

Is every veteran's affairs issue that will arise in the next four years known to us know? How about the next eight? Who can we trust to actually follow through?

Those are things that are not concrete or known, so all you have to go off of is record, experience and reputation.

As for declared policy, the only real differentiating yard stick is the GI Bill, which McCain just beat Obama bloody with.

You appear to be arguing that McCain's stance on the issue is superior because McCain has experience in uniform.

No, I am saying McCain's ability to understand the needs/wants of and provide for this demographic is superior because he is a member of that demographic.

That means his commitment to what he says and his willingness to follow through whatever he does do, and mere words are not proof of any of that. Obama only has words.

EDIT: I need to take a breath between posts

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
57 vs 50 states is a slip of the tongue. Naming the wrong prison camp is totally different. They don't sound similar.

No, it's not totally different in regards to the logic you were using. You were defending your belief that this was intentional by saying that his staff would have caught the mistake. Thus you were disallowing that Obama can misspeak if the subject matter is such that his staff would know better. That is obviously not the case.

I presented an obvious misspeak where his staff would know better as refutation of your logic.

As for the type of misspeak... It's not necessarily as dissimilar as you are trying to pretend it is, or in the manner you are presenting it.

He wasn't confusing 57 and 50, but rather 57 and 47 (or 60 and 50). The underlying logic that he had been to all but 3 states was working off a mistake in how many states there were. When accessing the number of states, his mind made a mistake and returned the wrong number. The reason this happened isn't going to be perfectly clear, but it's quite likely referencing a similarity in the numbers, 57 and 47, 60 and 50. The most obvious relation is that they are off by 1 in the tens, thus ending in the same digit in our numbering system. So a likely way to look at it is that in accessing the number the tens digit was corrupted. 6 instead of 5. Which are similar in some ways. Single digit, whole number, and are just 1 away from each other. It becomes easier to see how the mind can make such a mistake when you look at the similarities between the concepts. IF instead the concepts were not as similar it would be far more unlikely that someone would come up with it. For instance alligator*10 states when misspeaking is very unlikely. There just aren't as many similarities between 5 and alligator and so the mind wouldn't store and access them in as similar a fashion. (Unless you had some rather abnormal math classes at least. )

The same type of principle applies in how the mind works with other subject matter as well. The mind draws parallels between various concepts based on factors fundamental to those concepts. The concept of a concentration camp is related to any specific concentration camp. If someone tries to access the information of a name of a concentration camp, and their mind doesn't cooperate, they could either not get a number at all, or mistakenly get a similar reference. While it's unknown to us whether or not Obama's mistaken reference is due to something like this, it is definitely incorrect to say that such mistaken reference is impossible.

My mom does it all the time. She calls me Zac (the name of my youngest brother) or him Joe (my name). We obviously aren't the same person, and our names don't even sound the same, but we are both her sons, and so her mind stores and accesses those names in a similar fashion, increasing the likelihood of confusion between the two.

That's not to say that sounding the same can't be a relation the mind draws. Just that regards to coming up with a "close but not quite", sounding the same is really no different in how data is storage and retrieval by the brain. It is a similarity in regards to otherwise dissimilar (in some way) concepts.

[Agathon]

Remember when the Repugs kept on at Al Gore because he said he'd accompanied FEMA director James Lee Witt to some disaster in Texas? It turned out that Gore had mispoken because he'd been to this site with Witt's assistant. Apparently this made him a horrible liar, notwithstanding the fact that Gore had accompanied Witt to disaster sites a dozen times before (which is probably why he mispoke). The Repugs went on and on about that. I mean WTF?

This Obama thing is just as retarded as that.

57 vs 50 states is a slip of the tongue. Naming the wrong prison camp is totally different. They don't sound similar.

WTF? You make it sound like Obama had said his relative liberated Auschwitz when in fact he'd escaped from Parchman Farm.

[rah]

Originally posted by Aeson

My mom does it all the time. She calls me Zac (the name of my youngest brother) or him Joe (my name). We obviously aren't the same person, and our names don't even sound the same, but we are both her sons, and so her mind stores and accesses those names in a similar fashion, increasing the likelihood of confusion between the two.

Because she's familiar with both names and just pulls the wrong one out. I'm a twin, I can really understand that comment. But we're not talking about sons when you routinely use either name, we're talking about prison camps. How often do they come up in conversation? How many people can even name more than one? (which is why I think he changed intentionaly since someone might not recognize another one, no matter how stupid it looks in hindsight)