Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Arrian]

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?

Fair point.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
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.

Your reasoning why it is unimportant does not hold up in regards to what you were refering to (the statement of mine that you quoted). Sorry.

I don't really care why you were wrong, just pointing out that you were wrong. If you didn't mean to make the implication you did, that being that your "no it is not important" was not a refutation of what you were quoting, admit it, and move on.

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.

He is supporting a measure to screen for PTSD on discharge. Whether you agree with his proposition or not, it is ignorant of you to pretend all he is saying is that "PTSD is bad" when he is obviously making actual proposals about what to do in regards to PTSD.

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.

Your statement is ignorant of the reality that things can change. That is all I am pointing out in that regard. It's fine if you think McCain has the better plan, and is more likely to treat vets properly in the future, but pretending it always must be so is ignorant.

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

No. You actually went on to "qualify" it to prove my point. You are saying there should be no debate about PTSD because Obama can't possibly propose anything to even consider. As such you are saying it is not important for it to be a topic of debate.

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

You don't even know what a quote is.

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

No, you are the one making positive claims about the impossibility of Obama ever proposing something that is worth considering. I am not saying that it will or will not happen, just that it can happen. You are saying it cannot happen. The "burden of proof" lies on you since you are the one making a positive claim about what will happen in the future.

I put "burden of proof" in quotes since it is essentially a rhetorical situation. You cannot prove what will happen in the future as absolute, so your absolute statements of what will happen in the future are obviously unfounded.

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?

I am not asking voters to do anything. They can do whatever they want.

I am saying the proper way to judge a proposal is not by the qualifications of who is proposing it, but by the actual nature of the proposal itself. I have not addressed the issue of "character" at all, just your statements that Obama's proposal cannot possibly be something to consider.

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

You are ignoring reality. He has made actual proposals of what should be done in regards to PTSD.

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

You're braindead.

Yes, he obviously referred to the wrong concentration camp in regards to his great Uncle, and referred to his great Uncle as Uncle (which is a rather normal thing to do in many families). Even if you want to make the asinine assertion that he wasn't talking about family members because of the mistake, you're still wrong because he was also talking about his grandfather.

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?

That you classify Obama's position on PTSD as such shows your complete ignorance about the position that you have already predetermined to be "unimportant". It is willful ignorance on your part.



1:44 in the video is where he addresses an actual position on what should be done. It isn't simply "PTSD is bad" like you are pretending, regardless of whether or not you agree with is proposal it's still a proposal.

Get your head out of the sand dude.

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.

Who gives a **** about what your "serious" criticism is. You flat out said the only thing you've really talked about in this thread is the irrelevance of the stories. But that is a lie. You have also talked about the incorrect references.

It is not hypocritical, because I never said your personal experience is not relevant.

I never said you did say so. I said you were claiming that McCain's record makes his proposals necessarily better than Obamas. You have said over and over again that Obama cannot compete with McCain in this regard because of experience.

That is the point Aeson, Obama doesn't have any personal experience in this realm.

That is not the point. I was not referring to the experience of the parties involved. The hypocrisy involved is that you are claiming Obama is creating distraction by trying to create a personal relation to the issue, while you are creating distraction to the issue by pretending that his reference to the wrong concentration camp is a relevant issue. Also that instead of address Obama's actual proposal, you only refer to McCain's better standing on the issue.

You go so far as to say Obama has no actual proposal in the speech. Which is clearly wrong. You are the one obfuscating the actual issue, denying it actually even was present, and focusing on what you "agree" (and then disagree with your actions) is "irrelevant" instead. That is why you are a hypocrite to talk about Obama's mistaken use of terms.

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 is unimportant in regards to the actual value of a specific proposal. Which is what I have said. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but what I have said is what I am saying.

I personally don't care what McCain's record is. I know others will. But I can judge people's proposals based on their proposals. I don't expect a war veteran to always make the right choices in regards to how to do anything related to war, veterans, ect. I will judge the proposals on a case by case basis.

I'm not a sheep like you.

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?

You're confused again about what you are responding to. I said that it is important that candidates make their position clear. I did not say that voters cannot vote on their own criteria as you suggest.

I also said that a specific proposal should be judged on it's own merits. You claim you agree, but you keep disagreeing with it by trying to argue against that point by inanely reverting to McCain's record to somehow support your position.

Record matters in it's own right. It doesn't matter when judging the specific proposal. No amount of your confusing the two issues will change that.

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?

The one he mentioned in his speach, which you are saying doesn't exist, was that there should be screening for PTSD on discharge. Which I don't particularly agree with, unless it's more specifically applied and optional. But it's still important that Obama makes his position clear. It's not irrelevant like you claim.

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

The "bitter" one shows clearly that there are those in the media who will take Obama to task about an issue. You are ignoring a great deal of who comprises the media to make your asinine assertion that the media gave Obama a free pass on the "bitter" quotes.

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

It will vary from person to person, which is what I said. Claiming that the only reason a person would establish a personal connection is ignorant on your part, I was helping you to understand that there are other reasons for doing so.

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

No, you said that the reason (and only reason) to do so is to make people more receptive to the position being offered. What you have just agreed with here and said you were saying is different. Receptive to the politician != receptive to the position in all cases.

This is illustrated clearly in cases where someone disagrees on an issue with a politician they support otherwise, and with friends and family who disagree as well.

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.

You said you did not say anything other than to address the relevance. I was pointing out you did. I am glad you can admit you were lying when you said:

"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 " - Pat

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.

We obviously disagree on this point.

I think Obama should present his position as clearly as possible. As should all candidates. When addressing a topic, he should outline his proposals on the topic. It's not important to me that X candidate wins, what is important to me (and why I don't support any candidates in this election, and find the US election process such a travesty) is that the candidates actually address issues.

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."

You went further at other points in the conversation, presenting it as fact:

""Uncle" and "Auschwitz" were diliberatly chosen because people know about that/can relate to that." - Pat

If you would have stuck with "suspect", you would have had a much stronger position. But you have been consistently arguing your position as if it were fact. (Except of course when you deny you even stated such a position. )

Sort of like how you suspect he didn't.

I have not said I suspect it was one way or the other, or that it is one way or another. You have done both. I don't pretend to know Obama's thoughts the way you do. I allow for the possibility that he did or didn't intend to make the mistaken references, and don't presume to know why he would if he did.

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.

The quote you initially gave me was, "I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years." You edited it out of your original post, but have admitted it was there and of course I quoted it before you edited.

I specifically included that quote you initially gave me in the post. It is in what you quoted. It is the quote you gave. You are a liar trying to run and hide from reality and pretend you were quoting something else (which you later go on to admit).

As for "replacing" his words with my own... I'll address that in the second response down.

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?

Your argument about "such" and "that" is idiotic. The situation remains the same, we don't have evidence that he was indeed aware of "such" comments.

As for your lies about how I am changing quotes, the text I posted was from the link you provided. I didn't alter "such" to "that". I directly quoted (copy and paste) from the url you provided. This is from 2 paragraphs above where you quoted, and is actually the direct answer to the question.

"OLBERMANN: There‘s an awful lot of strong material that is now on videotape. We have played it. I see no reason to play it again, but a phrase that suggests that—God damn America is a better phrase to use than God bless America. Can you characterize your own reactions to this? Did you know that he made these statements before the videotape appeared?

OBAMA: You know, frankly, I didn‘t. I wasn‘t in church during the time when the statements were made. Now, I think it‘s, Keith, important to point out that he‘s been preaching for 30 years."

It's your link man. If you didn't want me to address what was said in it, don't link it. It's also part of his answer that you referenced. To pretend like it's not applicable is retarded. You seem to not understand what Obama actually said, and have only cherry picked a couple of sentences out of his answer so as to try and twist them out of context.

Obama goes on in the following paragraph to again iterate what he means by "such comments":

"But these particular statements that had been gathered are ones that I strongly objected to and strongly condemned. Had I heard them in church, I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright. So, I didn‘t familiar with these until recently."

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.

I don't understand why you think that is damning at all. Obama is saying he had heard the Rev say controversial things, but did not hear the statements with such incendiary language. So what?

You are reading way too much into "such" and confusing "incendiary language" with "controversial" statements.

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.

I am glad you can finally admit that you were not quoting Obama. Not so hard now is it?

As for your interpretation, it is your interpretation. I don't care if you are right or wrong. There are certainly various and contradictory interpretations out there.

I wanted to point out your lack of intellectual integrity, that you intentionally created a quote which does not exist and attributed it to Obama.

Thank you for going to all the trouble of proving it for me.

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.

Depends on his attendance record, how much he payed attention to the sermons, ect. You were treating it as a proof that he had heard the incendiary comments. I was pointing out your "proof" has no hard evidence.

That you fail to see this is rather funny. You've done this over and over... you offer an absolute based on conjecture, and I point out you have no evidence, so you try to argue against the absolute opposite, which I have not presented. You're arguing with yourself based on two unsupportable absolutes you've conjured. It's really quite entertaining.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
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)

It's the same issue rah.

Confusing the names of sons is generally caused by the mind's correlation between the similar attributes the sons share.

Confusing the names of prison camps would similarly likely be caused by the mind's correlation between the similar attributes the prison camps shared.

As for the likelihood that Obama (the one in question) knowing the names of various concentration camps, I can't say.

That said, on subjects where I don't use names a lot, but the information exists within my memory, I am more likely to make mistakes in reference, even when I do know the actual references. If the names of prison camps were one of those things, I would not be that surprised if I confused the names. I freely admit that before this debate I wouldn't have known the location of Auschwitz from Buchenwald, and wouldn't know what Ohrdruf at all, and wouldn't know who liberated each. (That is the type of information I am quite happy to rely upon Google for.)

But it wouldn't have mattered one bit to me (as far as how my mind responded) based on what name he used, since he clarified what he was talking about as "Nazi concentration camp" which will trigger the same response in my mind regardless of what name of the camp is used.

That's another reason why it doesn't make sense to intentionally confuse the names. The "important" information will be the "Nazi concentration camp", not the name Auschwitz. More people will recognize the former than the later. Invoking "Nazi concentration camp" will more reliably invoke the response presumed "desired".

The point being, pretending that it couldn't have been a misspeak because it's prison camps and not numbers or sons is ignorant. I'm not saying it was a misspeak, just refuting your logic that it wasn't a misspeak because it wasn't numbers being confused.

[rah]

The point being, pretending that it couldn't have been a misspeak because it's prison camps and not numbers or sons is ignorant. I'm not saying it was a misspeak, just refuting your logic that it wasn't a misspeak because it wasn't numbers being confused.

NAMES of sons, not numbers of sons. Man you're getting confused. (you were the one that made that comparison) My last post argued that confusing the names of sons was different than names of concentrations camps and not as likely to happen accidently. I was only responding to your own example.

And all I'm saying is I think it was intentional and even said it was only my opinion. You even say "I'm not saying it was a misspeak" so why are we arguing my opinion? I said so based on past experiences. You seem hung up on some sort of logic since you can't refute a personal opinion based on previous personal experiences any other way.

HE USED Auschwitz because he thought it would have more dramatic effect. (I agree that it does, despite your comment) Another opinion so don't try to argue my logic on it, since it would be silly.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I agreed with him that their positions matter, but that is not all that matters.

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

"No, its not important." - Pat
"Everything he said amounted to "PTSD is bad." - Pat
"He is, and always will be, inferior to McCain on this issue." - Pat
"If there was any substance in his PTSD remarks we could, but there was not." - Pat

Don't let him off the hook Arrian. Pat's full of **** and contradicting himself left and right. He keeps claiming that issues are important, but then goes right back to focusing solely on McCain's record (claiming that because of it, any Obama proposal always will be inferior to McCain) and pretending Obama didn't present any actual proposals in his speech.

Oh, and just in case you missed this one: (different subject, but it's good for laughs)

It was Memorial Day, and he mentioned his family members who have served. - Aeson
No, he didn't. - Pat

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
NAMES of sons, not numbers of sons.

"...because it's prison camps and not numbers or sons..." - Aeson

Man you're getting confused.

At least I know what "or" means, and how it differentiates from "of". (Hilariously enough, another example of how a person's mind, in this case your's, can confuse dissimilar terms based on similarity shared between them.) I was referring to both the 47/57 issue and names of sons. At no point did I refer to the number of sons as you are ignorantly suggesting.

My last post argued that confusing the names of sons was different than names of concentrations camps and not as likely to happen accidently. I was only responding to your own example.

I went into great detail about how they are essentially the same issue in regards to the potential to misspeak. You of course have offered no reasoning about why they are different in regards to misspeaking other than "they don't sound the same", or addressed my reasoning about why they are not necessarily so, or my addressing your "they don't sound the same".

And all I'm saying is I think it was intentional and even said it was only my opinion.

No, you tried to offer "evidence" as to why you think so. I have refuted your "evidence". I have not said that you don't think what you think.

You are the one trying to propose that you know what someone else (Obama) thinks. Not me.

You even say "I'm not saying it was a misspeak" so why are we arguing my opinion?

I am not arguing your opinion. I am arguing against the reasoning you have presented to support your opinion. I quite accept that your opinion is your opinion, and take great delight in pointing out it is your opinion and showing how your support for your opinion is fallacious.

I said so based on past experiences.

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

Those are positive claims, that can be verified. They are fair game for being proven or disproven.

I have made my arguments as such, and if you feel up to addressing them to try to support your assertions, feel free to do so.

HE USED Auschwitz because he thought it would have more dramatic effect. (I agree that it does, despite your comment) Another opinion so don't try to argue my logic on it, since it would be silly.

You're using a crystal ball instead of logic. We've already agreed on that. No need to keep confirming it.

[DinoDoc]

Rah: Why must it be a purposeful act rather than just him not caring to get the story correct?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
HE USED Auschwitz because he thought it would have more dramatic effect. (I agree that it does, despite your comment)

So are you saying in your mind "Auschwitz" refers to something worse than "Nazi concentration camp"? I don't think we should deny that the horrors that happened in other concentration camps are any less horrific just because of the name of the camp. I don't presume that most Americans would do so. While I think we have many failings as a culture, not being able to recognize the horrors of the concentration camps in general is not one of them.

Those that have the knowledge to differentiate between the camps based on the particulars of the camps, would in fact be the most likely group to know that the reference was not factual.

Those that don't have the knowledge to differentiate between camps but do know what "Auschwitz" is referring to wouldn't know the difference between "Auschwitz" and "Nazi concentration camps" in general. It would just be a name for a concept. Either would refer to the same concept.

Those that don't know what "Auschwitz" is, will be more affected by "Nazi concentration camp", and the name will be rather irrelevant.

Those who don't know what "Nazi concentration camp" refers to are almost surely not to know what "Auschwitz" is.

It doesn't make any sense to confuse the names. The gist of the story works perfectly well without any name in fact, it only requires a reference to the concept of "Nazi concentration camps". In cases where it could make a difference, the mistake would be apparent. And that's before factoring in the obvious prediction that a mistake on tape that will be seen nationally will almost surely be pointed out.

It just doesn't jive with the concept that Obama and his staff would be good at spinning the truth. In this case, it doesn't need to be spun, and any spinning can only hurt.

[rah]

When will you give it up.
I specifically said that it was my opinion that Auschwitz would have more dramatic impact. That I disagreed with you. So don't bother trying to convince me, but you try to anyway. IT"S AN OPINION. Not a fact, and your opinion isn't either, it's just YOUR opinion.

You're saying it doesn't make any sense to confuse the names and that the gist of the story works the same.
YOUR OPINION.
My opinion is that Auschwitz is more dramatic and that he did it intentionaly because of it. MY OPINION.
Since he's been know to embelish his stories a bit for dramatic effect. (just like 99% of politicians)

So argueing with me has NO effect.

Rah: Why must it be a purposeful act rather than just him not caring to get the story correct?

Now that aspect I didn't give consideration to. I was only giving thought to intentional or unintentional. Hmmmmm while posible, I'd still lean toward intentional, since he's a very good speaker that usually chooses his words carefully for dramatic effect. Which considering the countless number of mindless fawning people that he has been able to awe, demonstrates his considerable success in this area. He is usually a quite impressive speaker.

And before A jumps on this, IT"S ONLY MY OPINION.

[Patroklos]

Your reasoning why it is unimportant does not hold up in regards to what you were refering to (the statement of mine that you quoted). Sorry.

You are outright lying now. I said what he was saying about PTSD is unimportant preciecely because of McCain’s strength on the issue. Both his experience AND proposal. Actually, I didn't attribute either specifically to it, you seperated out the one you wanted. You will note (well you won’t, since you have turned into a ad hominem troll now) that before you narrowed the scope to PTSD I was simply saying, and have continued to for the most part, said veterans affairs.

I suggested, since page two when I made the suggestion Obama recognize his weakness here in all facets, he move on to issues he has traction in.

I don't really care why you were wrong, just pointing out that you were wrong. If you didn't mean to make the implication you did, that being that your "no it is not important" was not a refutation of what you were quoting, admit it, and move on.

Dude, you lost here. You deliberately cut a quote of mine twice, which is all but admission that you had to do so to hang on to a thin imaginary thread of a point.

What I said, and said from the beginning when the topic moved on from the Ops initial pointing out of factual error to the rest of the speech, was that that Obama specific words are in total irrelevant and unimportant because McCain’s are already superior. Obama did nothing more than prove this, which since most people already know this means his effort/words were unimportant. If he had something different to say the story might be different...

He is supporting a measure to screen for PTSD on discharge. Whether you agree with his proposition or not, it is ignorant of you to pretend all he is saying is that "PTSD is bad" when he is obviously making actual proposals about what to do in regards to PTSD.

I said “what it amounts to” is that PTSD is bad. Nice quote chop, again. Which of course since his everything he said is actually no different than what McCain and other candidates have said, is exactly what it amounts to.

Your statement is ignorant of the reality that things can change. That is all I am pointing out in that regard. It's fine if you think McCain has the better plan, and is more likely to treat vets properly in the future, but pretending it always must be so is ignorant.

I didn’t say it always has to be so, I said it simply isn’t. There is a difference. Obama has made no effort to disprove this prediction.

No. You actually went on to "qualify" it to prove my point. You are saying there should be no debate about PTSD because Obama can't possibly propose anything to even consider. As such you are saying it is not important for it to be a topic of debate.

When did I say there should be no debate? Quote me (no chops please).

I didn’t say he can’t debate veteran’s affairs. Nor did I say he can’t have better ideas. What I said is that he isn’t. He will never understand the issues that face veterans in the same way that McCain does. His Memorial Day speech proved me correct up to the present.

I challenge you to find one quote in this thread where I say he can’t have better ideas. I don’t, I say won’t or never will or something along those lines. Most of your turgid post above disintegrates in the light of that simple fact, but I will soldier on

No, you are the one making positive claims about the impossibility of Obama ever proposing something that is worth considering.

Please quote where I say impossible/can’t.

Impossible/can’t /= never/won’t

I am saying the proper way to judge a proposal is not by the qualifications of who is proposing it, but by the actual nature of the proposal itself.

That’s fine if you want to myopically focus on the PTSD issue alone, which I have for the most part not done here. But as Arrian and I discussed, known concrete issues are not the only things relevant. Experience and reputation are really the only things you can use to decide how people will deal with issues not yet known within a certain category.

And of course no matter what your stump speech says experience and reputation are what convinces me if you will actually do what you say. In that light it really doesn’t always matter what the proposals are (superior or worse), but whether you trust someone do actual make them happen.

McCain (and Republicans in general) wins there, as polling amongst the demographic in question shows.

You are ignoring reality. He has made actual proposals of what should be done in regards to PTSD.

He talked about increased screening for PTSD. Everyone does including McCain, so net effect is irrelevance.

Who gives a **** about what your "serious" criticism is. You flat out said the only thing you've really talked about in this thread is the irrelevance of the stories. But that is a lie. You have also talked about the incorrect references.

Apparently you do, since you keep trying to suggest I only care about some irrelevant factual errors instead of something else, even though I have said the opposite since the second page of this thread.

And no, I didn’t say the only thing I talked about was the irrelevance of the stories. What I said is that I only cared about or seriously criticizing him on was the irrelevance of the stories. The OP is in fact about the incorrect references, and other posters including yourself have continually brought them up, hence I have talked about them more than the other. The main reason for that is it seems most people agree in the irrelevance of the stories. This is your little masochistic rant, I am just along for the ride.

I never said you did say so. I said you were claiming that McCain's record makes his proposals necessarily better than Obamas. You have said over and over again that Obama cannot compete with McCain in this regard because of experience.

What I actually said was McCain’s experience and actually memebership in the demographic means he will serve them better.

I never said Obama can’t compete with McCain (again, quote me if you want), I said he won’t and never will. For a good many reasons it would not be an outrageous assessment to say Obama can’t, but since there seems to be a particularly cranky poster picking semantics to the bone at the moment I will go ahead and stick with what I did say, that he simply isn’t going to.

That is not the point. I was not referring to the experience of the parties involved. The hypocrisy involved is that you are claiming Obama is creating distraction by trying to create a personal relation to the issue, while you are creating distraction to the issue by pretending that his reference to the wrong concentration camp is a relevant issue. Also that instead of address Obama's actual proposal, you only refer to McCain's better standing on the issue.

Who said anything about a distraction from the issue? Perhaps you should quote me again. What I said was that Obama was trying to foster a personal connection with his audience so they would be more receptive, that has nothing to do with distraction.

You have yet to provide any evidence of me not addressing the relevant issue. It was addressed, Obama’s stances brought up thus far are either inferior (GI Bill) or irrelevant (having pretty much the same opinion as everyone concerning PTSD). If you want to continue hemming and hawing about already settled issues at this point, feel free.

You go so far as to say Obama has no actual proposal in the speech. Which is clearly wrong. You are the one obfuscating the actual issue, denying it actually even was present, and focusing on what you "agree" (and then disagree with your actions) is "irrelevant" instead. That is why you are a hypocrite to talk about Obama's mistaken use of terms.

There was nothing substantial in that speech. I suppose if he had suggested mandatory vaccinations for soldiers you would consider that a proposal to. Hint for Aeson: that already happens, just like PTSD screenings

BTW, you need to look up hypocrisy, that word doesn’t mean what you think it does apparently.

It is unimportant in regards to the actual value of a specific proposal. Which is what I have said. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but what I have said is what I am saying.

Well that’s a good thing we are not talking about simply PTSD, but veteran affairs. I challenge you to go back and read the first page of this thread and then ask yourself if I was talking about Obama garnering support for PTSD, or veterans in general. Feel free to point out the number of times I say “veterans/military affairs” in this thread when talking about McCain vs Obama. You narrowed the debate here, and I have no obligation to follow you.

I personally don't care what McCain's record is. I know others will. But I can judge people's proposals based on their proposals. I don't expect a war veteran to always make the right choices in regards to how to do anything related to war, veterans, ect. I will judge the proposals on a case by case basis.

Great. Unfortunelty for you this is the president for four to eight years, and his specific ideas on a select few hot button issues are not the only things to worry about. So for those things we don’t know about (or do but are too mundane for stump speeches) what do we use do differentiate the candidates? Experience. Reputation. Record.

You're confused again about what you are responding to. I said that it is important that candidates make their position clear. I did not say that voters cannot vote on their own criteria as you suggest.

I would like you do point out when I said it is not important for candidates to make their positions clear. Quote please. In this case, it just so happens the position Obama did take is unimportant in the context of the campaign because there was no substance to it. He could have said something important, he just didn’t.

I find it funny you say I don’t want politicians to make there positions clear, let alone at all, when I myself suggested Obama move on to topics where he does have something relevant and important to say, like health care.

I also said that a specific proposal should be judged on it's own merits. You claim you agree, but you keep disagreeing with it by trying to argue against that point by inanely reverting to McCain's record to somehow support your position.

That’s because you keep magnifying and enlarging the issue from PTSD specifically to simply winning veterans votes or veterans affairs in general to suit your whim. It just so happens that McCain’s proposals and experience/record/reputation trump Obama hands down.

The one he mentioned in his speach, which you are saying doesn't exist, was that there should be screening for PTSD on discharge. Which I don't particularly agree with, unless it's more specifically applied and optional. But it's still important that Obama makes his position clear. It's not irrelevant like you claim.

Once he did say it, it turned out to be unimportant. I didn’t say it was unimportant before I knew what he was talking about. I heard it, and in light of what already exists/what others are proposing consider it unimportant.

The "bitter" one shows clearly that there are those in the media who will take Obama to task about an issue. You are ignoring a great deal of who comprises the media to make your asinine assertion that the media gave Obama a free pass on the "bitter" quotes.

Clinton broke that story Aeson, not the media. And then the hype wasn’t really about the comment itself, but rather Clinton’s criticism of Obama calling him “elitist.” Every bit of the commentary from the talking heads concerned Clinton’s comments, I can count on one hand the number of times I heard the actual Obama audio.

It will vary from person to person, which is what I said. Claiming that the only reason a person would establish a personal connection is ignorant on your part, I was helping you to understand that there are other reasons for doing so.

If this was a AA meating you would have a point, but then again they are establishing that connection for a reason too, aren’t then? How about that date? Now let’s apply that to a scheduled prestaged political event on Memorial Day. Exactly.

You said you did not say anything other than to address the relevance. I was pointing out you did. I am glad you can admit you were lying when you said:

No, I didn’t. Feel free to quote me though. In fact I went out of my way to mention that that I DID consider the factual errors a legitimate problem despite them not being be serious criticism in the thread because you’re your propensity to quibble, as you just did.

Let me help you out here, since you bolded the wrong part…

"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/

That was added there for a reason, because as I myself said all I can do is suspect he manipulated the story on purpose, but the anecdote is irrelevant.

You went further at other points in the conversation, presenting it as fact:

From the first page of this thread, a running narrative available to anyone who cares, I established that this was suspect. At no point did I ever put forward anything described as evidence. I did put forward the reasons why I suspected what I did, but having already said that it is not necessary for me to continually repeat that. Some wisdom for you…

RTFT

The quote you initially gave me was, "I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years." You edited it out of your original post, but have admitted it was there and of course I quoted it before you edited.

That was actually edited out before you replied, so spare me the “I went back and changed it after the fact” crap. I realized myself that was not a necessary example given the far more relevant Selma one.

But you took it anyway, do your extreme detriment.

“I specifically included that quote you initially gave me in the post. It is in what you quoted. It is the quote you gave. You are a liar trying to run and hide from reality and pretend you were quoting something else (which you later go on to admit).”

It was obviously a mocking paraphrase Aeson, the fact that you are even trying to hang your hat on it is absolutely pathetic. Even more so because when you challenged me to find the actual direct quote I did, even though I attempted to spare you the humiliation of actually demanding a well known and recognized quote be produced because you couldn’t admit in invalidated your position.

As for "replacing" his words with my own... I'll address that in the second response down.

I didn’t say you replaced his words with your own. I said you replaced the direct Obama quote I gave you that with a direct Obama quote you preferred, and then pretended that is the one I gave you in the first place.

The direct quote I provided and sourced:

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

The direct quote you maliciously replaced it with in your rebuttal, or rather said I was referring to even though I had already given you the actual quote:

"You know, frankly, I didn‘t. I wasn‘t in church during the time when the statements were made."
One referring to “such incendiary language” in general (mine), the other specifically referring to the youtube videos Olbermann specifically questioned him on.

As for your lies about how I am changing quotes, the text I posted was from the link you provided. I didn't alter "such" to "that". I directly quoted (copy and paste) from the url you provided. This is from 2 paragraphs above where you quoted, and is actually the direct answer to the question.

It appears you just failed to read, not surprising given your performance in this thread. Suffice to say the next couple paragraphs you poster were just blotted overreaction to a mistake you made that I called you out on, but yet still could figure out yourself.

Though I will note that you had to have actually read my original quote first before picking out your own ultimately irrelevant one. I will also note that I specifically mentioned that Obama said he had heard controversial language at the church, but not of the sort in the youtube videos. I did that to forestall your quibbling, even though you decided to do so anyway.

I don't understand why you think that is damning at all. Obama is saying he had heard the Rev say controversial things, but did not hear the statements with such incendiary language. So what?

Because unless you are braindead, it is obvious that it Wrights modus operandi to spout off at the mouth like he did. Please tell me you are not so naive that you think this old career preacher learned a new trick in December ray:

You are reading way too much into "such" and confusing "incendiary language" with "controversial" statements.

Or simply reading what he said, vice what I want him to say. He said such for a reason.

I am glad you can finally admit that you were not quoting Obama. Not so hard now is it?

I never actually said I was quoting Obama until I provided the actual sourced direct quote, as it was pretty obvious I wasn’t. In fact, when you asked me to source to quote I never described what I said as a quote, only that I could find you a quote saying the same thing as my paraphrase.

As for your interpretation, it is your interpretation. I don't care if you are right or wrong. There are certainly various and contradictory interpretations out there.

There is what he said, and then there is what he didn’t say. You are free to continue believe what he didn’t say.

I wanted to point out your lack of intellectual integrity, that you intentionally created a quote which does not exist and attributed it to Obama.

Only a desperately grasping internet denizen has to resort to your semantic manufacturing of content. It was VERY obvious I wasn’t directly quoting Aeson, and your necessity for pretending that I was is the saddest thing about your rant above.

Depends on his attendance record, how much he payed attention to the sermons, ect. You were treating it as a proof that he had heard the incendiary comments. I was pointing out your "proof" has no hard evidence.

There you go again, asserting that I said I provided concrete “proof” or “evidence.” What I did is show that it is doubtful in the extreme that he would not have heard these things, so much so that you would have to be a brainwashed zombie to really believe he didn’t.

That you fail to see this is rather funny. You've done this over and over... you offer an absolute based on conjecture

Hardly, you simply assume everything I say is an absolute, and then bash your head against a wall that doesn’t exist in the process. It is rather funny watching you blithely disregard the likely in favor your preferred version of things.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
When will you give it up.

Responding to you? I don't know. Possibly when you fail to respond to me, or I grow bored of it, or something else takes my interest. It's possible we will continue on until the heat death/implosion/whatever of the universe. Quite unlikely though.

Don't worry so much about it man, it'll happen in it's own due course.

So don't bother trying to convince me, but you try to anyway.

I can post what I want to post, thanks. (And you seem confused about why I do respond. As already stated, I'm not here to fix you rah. )

So argueing with me has NO effect.

Oh, it certainly has an effect.

It keeps you spilling out positive assertions, which I can then refute.

Like your assertion that there is "NO effect" to my arguing with you. Which is obviously false since your response is an effect of my continuing to post. (As is my own posting. And quite a few laughs I've enjoyed along the way.)

Also... I would like to point out you initially responded to me. So your assertion that responding to opinions is useless suggests that you feel your entire contribution to this discussion between us has been useless. I am sorry you feel compelled to participate in useless activities.

As for the rest of your drivel, either you can debate my statements and the reasoning offered, or you can run and hide behind "it's my opinion so don't question me". In either case, contrary to your claims there are positive claims that have been made in our discussion. (Your claims that there have not been any positive claims being one of those claims. ) I will discuss them to my heart's content.

And before A jumps on this, IT"S ONLY MY OPINION.

QQ

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Aeson
He is supporting a measure to screen for PTSD on discharge. Whether you agree with his proposition or not, it is ignorant of you to pretend all he is saying is that "PTSD is bad" when he is obviously making actual proposals about what to do in regards to PTSD.

That's what patty does.

[Patroklos]

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

"No, its not important." - Pat
"Everything he said amounted to "PTSD is bad." - Pat
"He is, and always will be, inferior to McCain on this issue." - Pat
"If there was any substance in his PTSD remarks we could, but there was not." - Pat

Don't let him off the hook Arrian. Pat's full of **** and contradicting himself left and right.

Cut. Cut. Cut.

Aeson

Btw, there is no contridiction up there if you include the actual quotes.

Let me try!

Aeson:

"I..."
"...am..."
"...braindead."

FUN!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I said what he was saying about PTSD is unimportant preciecely because of McCain’s strength on the issue. Both his experience AND proposal.

I am glad you can finally admit you were using McCain's experience as a reason why the specific proposal was unimportant. Experience doesn't matter in regards to specified proposals. You fail to understand that even in this case where it becomes patently obvious because even though their experience differs, their proposals are much the same (according to you).

Actually, I didn't attribute either specifically to it, you seperated out the one you wanted.

Ok, so you are admitting you didn't specifically give your reasoning for your calling it unimportant. Which is to say, you didn't qualify your statement properly, you just said it was unimportant.

"His proposal for dealing with PTSD is important. (Whether you agree with it or not.)" - Aeson
"No, its not important." - Pat

You will note (well you won’t, since you have turned into a ad hominem troll now) that before you narrowed the scope to PTSD I was simply saying, and have continued to for the most part, said veterans affairs.

PTSD is the issue Obama addresses clip we are discussing. PTSD is the issue I was talking about when you responded to me. PTSD is what I specifically qualified my statement with (as seen in the quote in the response above). That statement is what has lead to this line of discussion. Naturally this line of discussion is about PTSD.

Specifically, the part you said was "unimportant" was in response to when I explicitly referenced Obama's speech about PTSD.

I suggested, since page two when I made the suggestion Obama recognize his weakness here in all facets, he move on to issues he has traction in.

So? That only makes your position even less supportable. You are saying Obama should ignore veteran affairs altogether. That is an asinine thing to suggest for a legitimate presidential candidate to do. (Especially on Memorial Day speech.) If he did ignore veteran affairs, he'd get a ton of flak for not addressing it. So what if you think his proposals are weak? He has to make the proposals for (intelligent) people to actually determine the strength/weakness of his position.

We aren't all like you and pretend to know the future.

Dude, you lost here. You deliberately cut a quote of mine twice, which is all but admission that you had to do so to hang on to a thin imaginary thread of a point.

I explained exactly why the rest of the paragraph was not relevant to the point. I will go over it in more detail for you here:

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

"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." - Pat

You say that what Obama said about PTSD is unimportant. You do so in response to a statement which was referring to Obama putting his position out to be judged (right or wrong). By doing so you are saying that Obama shouldn't express his position for potential voters to decide on, and that it's not important for him to do so.

Nowhere in the following paragraph do you contradict that sentiment, which is why I initially did not include it in the quote. Your talk about "insinuations" is irrelevant to whether or not it's important for voters to know the position of the candidates. Your statement that McCain > Obama because of McCain's experience is also irrelevant to whether or not it's important for voters to know the position of the candidates. Of course the strawman about Obama's uncle is irrelevant to whether or not it's important for voters to know the position of the candidates. None of those statements qualifies your "No, its not important" statement in regards to how I responded to it. It just shows your bias in interpreting Obama's statements in the clip, your predetermined viewpoint on McCain > Obama, and your propensity to focus on the non-issue (uncle) rather than the actual topic (PTSD). None of which is a valid argument to support or qualify your stance that Obama shouldn't discuss the issue of PTSD or veteran affairs.

What I said, and said from the beginning when the topic moved on from the Ops initial pointing out of factual error to the rest of the speech, was that that Obama specific words are in total irrelevant and unimportant because McCain’s are already superior.

Obama's position is important even if you think it's inferior. In fact, for you to determine that his position is inferior, you have to have his position expressed before making the determination. You seem to think everyone is already aware of all his positions, and hold your viewpoint of them. That is obviously false. Obama should continue to express his views and positions on topics while dealing with those topics. It just so happens that on Memorial Day, issues involving veterans are a natural topic to address.

Don't have a cow over it.

Obama did nothing more than prove this, which since most people already know this means his effort/words were unimportant. If he had something different to say the story might be different...

You're free to judge it however you want, but he should address the issues he's speaking about. Me personally, I wasn't aware of his specific stance on this issue. I am sure there were, and still are, quite a few other people who are not aware of his stance on many issues.

In fact, once the nominations are finalized, we're sure to have the candidates go over the issues again... and again... and again. Even McCain will do so. That is how you get your message out. Not say it once then never touch on it again. Especially not when the "once" is before the party nomination is even decided.

I said “what it amounts to” is that PTSD is bad.

It amounts to more than "PTSD is bad". It is a presidential candidate expressing his position on the subject. You may think it's insignificant, others may disagree... but the fact that he addressed the topic is important. You've argued about it for pages and pages... it's funny to see you so worked up about something you think is unimportant. What's the matter? Afraid that since Obama and McCain agree on this issue (according to you) that it might not uphold your preconception that McCain will always be > Obama. (Since in this specific case, according to you, McCain = Obama.)

Which of course since his everything he said is actually no different than what McCain and other candidates have said, is exactly what it amounts to.

No. Even if candidates agree on a topic they still should present their views. (This is how we determine that they do in fact agree on the issue in fact.)

I didn’t say it always has to be so, I said it simply isn’t. There is a difference. Obama has made no effort to disprove this prediction.

I am glad you can admit it's only a prediction. You didn't simply say "it simply isn't" though. You went so far as to say it "never will be".

When did I say there should be no debate? Quote me (no chops please).

You said that Obama shouldn't even attempt to address the issue of veteran affairs. Several times so far. When you say so, you are saying there should be no debate between the candidates (Obama and McCain) on those issues.

"He has nothing to offer in this category, he should simply leave it alone and focus on what he does have credentials for. When anyone discovers what that could possible be, let the rest of us know " - Pat

"Obama will never get traction on veteran affairs/PTSD or any other military related topic over McCain. The fact that he even tries, especially given the way he tried, speaks poorly for the man." - Pat

"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." - Pat

I didn’t say he can’t debate veteran’s affairs.

You said he shouldn't.

Nor did I say he can’t have better ideas.

You said he will never do so.

What I said is that he isn’t.

And you said he shouldn't. Among other things.

He will never understand the issues that face veterans in the same way that McCain does.

That is not necessarily important. Presidents usually don't have personal experience in most of what they have to decide on. That is why they rely on advisers who do have experience and expertise in the issue. In the specific case of PTSD, the best advice is likely to come from the psychiatric field. There's no reason why Obama couldn't consult those who understand the issue. (And even veterans tend to need such advice. The "self-treatment" that many sufferers of PTSD come up with should be evidence enough for that.)

His Memorial Day speech proved me correct up to the present.

In your opinion. It should be no surprise that you "validated" your preconception of course.

I challenge you to find one quote in this thread where I say he can’t have better ideas. I don’t, I say won’t or never will or something along those lines.

You have said it never will happen. You want to pretend there's a huge difference between that and "can't happen", but there isn't. In fact, in a deterministic world, the two are one and the same. Even if we ignore that technicality though, the implication is the same in both cases. You are giving your opinion that Obama does not possess whatever it is you feel McCain possesses which makes McCain naturally stronger, and are predicting that that will not change in the future. That's what it means in both cases.

Because we all know you don't know what will happen in the future. You're just guessing, like millions of others do. Some think Obama will make a better president, some think McCain will. It will probably come down to about 50:50, like it usually does. The sad thing is that it likely won't have anything to do with real issues, because people like you are so wrapped up in your party affiliation that nothing the other side says will be important.

That’s fine if you want to myopically focus on the PTSD issue alone, which I have for the most part not done here.

In the clip we are talking about, Obama was talking about PTSD. I have been talking about PTSD. When you responded to me where I was specifically talking about PTSD you were either talking about PTSD, or responding out of context.

But as Arrian and I discussed, known concrete issues are not the only things relevant.

Sure. There are other issues. But it is ignorant to try to cloud a specific "concrete" issue with other issues, especially the "character" type which vary wildly from person to person based on bias.

Personally I think that veterans would be better off under Obama. Mainly because Obama is less likely to extend/start needless wars/occupations from which the problems come from. I could be right or wrong. As could you. But in any case it doesn't change whether or not Obama should discuss his standing on the issue of PTSD. He should get his message out. Contrary to what you think, that doesn't just mean say it once and forget it forever.

Experience and reputation are really the only things you can use to decide how people will deal with issues not yet known within a certain category.

You are unnecessarily paring down the factors that people can use to judge the qualifications of a candidate. There are plenty of other ways people make predictions about such things. Current policy is the most important to me for instance, since it generally is the "base" that later policy will continue to work on. There are some unexpected issues that will arise while in office, but what they are is of course, unknown.

Generally speaking, the US population is most likely to do so based on party affiliation. Issues can be overridden too. For instance, a candidate who wants to cut taxes, even if they have a "better" position on a specific issue, may end up cutting their own ability to fund that issue. Or as mentioned in the previous response block, a candidate who is more likely to continue/start unnecessary wars will jeopardize armed forces personnel moreso than any bill could. Plus candidates have to work with congress, so whether or not they can implement their policy is not always just up to the candidate.

I find "character" to be a terrible way to choose a candidate. That is because it's pretty much people justifying their factually unsupportable preconceptions. It basically ends up with D's finding D candidates to have better "character" and R's finding R candidates as such. It's pretty funny (and sad) if you take a step back from your party affiliation and watch how people's views on "character" flip flop even with the same exact issue... just depending on who is in question.

And of course no matter what your stump speech says experience and reputation are what convinces me if you will actually do what you say.

You're not the only one to consider though. Some people would disagree with you that it's a "stump speech", others would have missed prior statements about the position, and a candidates position may change over time as well. So making the statements as to what their position is is always a useful thing.

And you can ignore it if you want. It's funny to watch you get all foamed up at the mouth to talk about something you consider "unimportant".

In that light it really doesn’t always matter what the proposals are (superior or worse), but whether you trust someone do actual make them happen.

McCain (and Republicans in general) wins there, as polling amongst the demographic in question shows.

Still doesn't mean Obama should not address the issue. You're basically just saying you don't agree with him and so he should shut up. Veterans affairs don't just matter to veterans either, every voter should be concerned about how their nation treats their vets. Memorial Day is a good time to address the public, get your message out about those issues, since the general public will be more attuned to the issue at that time.

He talked about increased screening for PTSD. Everyone does including McCain, so net effect is irrelevance.

The effect is relevant to those who don't have an axe to grind. You obviously do not want to focus on areas where candidates agree. I think it's a good place to start from, or at least one of the good places to start from, for all candidates.

If candidates doen't express their positions, how is anyone to know they are in agreement?

Apparently you do, since you keep trying to suggest I only care about some irrelevant factual errors instead of something else, even though I have said the opposite since the second page of this thread.

That "apparently you do" doesn't make any sense. Because the "serious criticism" being referred to is a strawman you were throwing up. I was addressing your statements about the factual errors, to which you replied that it wasn't your "serious criticism". I was simply pointing out that in response to the discussion about the issue of factual errors, it's irrelevant if you have other issues you consider your "serious criticism".

"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 " - Pat

"You have done more than just maintained that position." - Aeson

"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." - Pat
"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." - Pat

"Who gives a **** about what your "serious" criticism is. You flat out said the only thing you've really talked about in this thread is the irrelevance of the stories. But that is a lie. You have also talked about the incorrect references." - Aeson

And no, I didn’t say the only thing I talked about was the irrelevance of the stories.

The definition of "maintained" refutes you. By saying it is the only position you have "maintained" you are saying that the other positions you have expressed you have dropped. Which is obviously not the case. You continue to mention the factual errors, among other things. I was correct to say you have maintained more than just the irrelevance of the stories. You were incorrect to disagree with that statement.

What I said is that I only cared about or seriously criticizing him on was the irrelevance of the stories.

No, what you said is:

"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 " - Pat

For someone who is trying to weasel themselves out of what they said by relying on the difference between "will never" and "can not", your attempt to change "maintained" to "care about" is ridiculous. I don't give a **** what you care about. What you've said is important. And you've "maintained" quite a bit more than just the "experiances are irrelevant" stuff. (In fact, you've ignored your statement that the experiences are irrelevant and gone on to say that they are relevant.)

The OP is in fact about the incorrect references, and other posters including yourself have continually brought them up, hence I have talked about them more than the other.

QQ more.

You spoke about them. No one forced you to. You offered your own mind reading into why they occurred, without prodding even. You pathetic attempts to blame your focus on that issue on other posters only shows what a complete lack of intellectual integrity you are displaying here.

The main reason for that is it seems most people agree in the irrelevance of the stories.

You on the other hand ascribe all sorts of relevance to the stories. Based on your mind-reading no less.

I never said Obama can’t compete with McCain (again, quote me if you want), I said he won’t and never will.

Thanks for that clarification.

Everything I've said still stands. You are making an unsupported prediction about future events based on your biased preconceptions. You are basing your statements that Obama should not even attempt to compete off of your predictions.

It's hilarious the extent you carry your bias to.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
For a good many reasons it would not be an outrageous assessment to say Obama can’t, but since there seems to be a particularly cranky poster picking semantics to the bone at the moment I will go ahead and stick with what I did say, that he simply isn’t going to.

And that he shouldn't try. Which is the basis of my argument against those statements. I said he should address the issues. You say he shouldn't and when he does it's unimportant. You have said it always will be so.

Your position is absurd. I'm glad you note that the thing keeping you from claiming Obama can't is my presence. It's funny that you treat it as something you might say otherwise. Do you make it a habit to make statements you know are fallacious and unsupportable when critiqued?

Who said anything about a distraction from the issue? Perhaps you should quote me again.

"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." - Pat

Are you saying that you don't think Obama was trying to obfuscate his lack of experience by bringing irrelevant family history into it?

What I said was that Obama was trying to foster a personal connection with his audience so they would be more receptive, that has nothing to do with distraction.

Actually it does. It is taking one irrelevant issue (family's history) and using it to obscure the real issue (his personal experience). You seem to have made that claim several times yourself.

You have yet to provide any evidence of me not addressing the relevant issue.

At the time I brought up PTSD in this thread, no one had addressed it so far. No one even addressed my bringing up the issue that Obama was actually speaking about afterward. Everyone, yourself included, focused mainly on the factual errors. You did make some statements about how Obama shouldn't even try to address veteran affairs, but that's still just ignoring the issue of PTSD, which is what the speech was about.

It wasn't until I had addressed the issue a second time on page 4, and started discussing things with rah, that you deigned address the issue to call it unimportant. (Which is to just an attempt justify your ignoring of it, so why you want to pretend you aren't ignoring it is beyond me.)

It was addressed, Obama’s stances brought up thus far are either inferior (GI Bill) or irrelevant (having pretty much the same opinion as everyone concerning PTSD). If you want to continue hemming and hawing about already settled issues at this point, feel free.

They are both relevant. You want to say Obama is inferior in all regards and always will be. Yet the subject of PTSD shows, by your own admission, that on specific subjects that is obviously not the case. No wonder you want to pretend it's an irrelevant subject, since it obviously repudiates your prediction.

There was nothing substantial in that speech. I suppose if he had suggested mandatory vaccinations for soldiers you would consider that a proposal to. Hint for Aeson: that already happens, just like PTSD screenings

It's an issue. I don't know if mandatory PTSD screenings already occur. If they do, then it's still not an irrelevant issue. I for one don't support mandatory screenings for PTSD (as already noted). It is an issue that deserves to be discussed in it's own right, and which voters deserve to be made aware of.

And yes, that will definitely require it being addressed more than once. We don't all hang on every word each candidate says. Especially not in primaries.

BTW, you need to look up hypocrisy, that word doesn’t mean what you think it does apparently.

Describe for us what I think it means please. (Yes, since you have difficulties with picking out this sort of thing, it's a rhetorical request on my part.)

Well that’s a good thing we are not talking about simply PTSD, but veteran affairs. I challenge you to go back and read the first page of this thread and then ask yourself if I was talking about Obama garnering support for PTSD, or veterans in general. Feel free to point out the number of times I say “veterans/military affairs” in this thread when talking about McCain vs Obama. You narrowed the debate here, and I have no obligation to follow you.

You have the obligation to follow me if you wish to address my statements about PTSD. (Or rather, my statements about Obama's statements about PTSD.)

"His proposal for dealing with PTSD is important. (Whether you agree with it or not.)" - Aeson
"No, its not important." - Pat

This is what this whole portion of the discussion has stemmed off of. It is what was being referred to in the statement you quoted to respond to here, which was, "It is unimportant in regards to the actual value of a specific proposal." You were responding to a statement I had made specifically about Obama's PTSD proposition in the video clip. You can't pretend my statement was about veteran affairs in general even if you ignore that, since I explicitly stated "specific proposal".

Great. Unfortunelty for you this is the president for four to eight years, and his specific ideas on a select few hot button issues are not the only things to worry about. So for those things we don’t know about (or do but are too mundane for stump speeches) what do we use do differentiate the candidates? Experience. Reputation. Record.

That and other things. (As said before, most people seem to go with party affiliation over anything else.) Nothing you said there supports that candidates shouldn't clarify their positions on issues. I personally look at a candidates platform and from that can determine what they are likely to do in future hypothetical situations. I find it far more accurate than solely relying on "experience", "reputation", and "record", the latter two which tend to be extremely subjective matters, and even "experience" tends to fail in most issues, and can of course be replaced by advisers with "experience" of their own.

But the point you are missing is the topic is PTSD, a specific topic, specified by Obama and myself, to which you are referring. It is possible to just address the proposal on it's own merits, which is what I said I do. As for what other hypothetical issues will arise later in office and who is most likely to address them best, that is another topic.

I would like you do point out when I said it is not important for candidates to make their positions clear. Quote please. In this case, it just so happens the position Obama did take is unimportant in the context of the campaign because there was no substance to it.

You said several times (without qualification) that Obama shouldn't address the area of veteran affairs. You denied that he would ever say anything useful in that regard, that he had nothing to offer, and never will. You said all he has to say on the subject is unimportant. As such you are essentially saying that there should be no debate on the subject in this presidential campaign.

He could have said something important, he just didn’t.

Something you deny he ever will do, based on your amazing ability to predict the future. (Or more likely, your extreme bias which will always lead you to the conclusion that anything he says on the subject must be unimportant, even if he agrees with your preferred candidate on a specific topic, like this one (according to you). )

I find it funny you say I don’t want politicians to make there positions clear, let alone at all, when I myself suggested Obama move on to topics where he does have something relevant and important to say, like health care.

I was speaking about this specific subject. You seem confused about what we are talking about. And your actual statement was:

"When anyone discovers what that could possible be, let the rest of us know " - Pat

You were obviously implying that you didn't consider him to have something relevant and important to say on anything. Sarcastically... but you certainly didn't qualify your statement to refer to any such areas.

That’s because you keep magnifying and enlarging the issue from PTSD specifically to simply winning veterans votes or veterans affairs in general to suit your whim.

First you claim I am myopically focusing on PTSD, but now you're claiming I magnify and enlarge it to veterans affairs. I think you are confused, because I have been consistently talking about PTSD and hypothetical "specific issue". It's silly to try to treat "veterans affairs" as some monolithic block of issues that will be winner take all, no differentiation between issues allowed. (Sounds similar to your treating the media as a monolithic block with the same "free pass" offered to Obama.)

You are the one throwing veterans affairs that is specifically qualified (by myself and Obama) to be about PTSD.

It just so happens that McCain’s proposals and experience/record/reputation trump Obama hands down.

Which is irrelevant in regards to a specific issue. Which is actually something that becomes rather clear in this issue, as (if as you say is the case) Obama and McCain agree.

Once he did say it, it turned out to be unimportant. I didn’t say it was unimportant before I knew what he was talking about. I heard it, and in light of what already exists/what others are proposing consider it unimportant.

You said he shouldn't address it. That is not to say he shouldn't have addressed it. And of course, the actual thing you should have said is that you think he shouldn't have addressed it in that manner. You also fail to understand that you are not everyone. Not everyone has heard Obama's position. Candidates have to address the issues many, many times to get their position out to a wide audience. Especially on the more "mundane" issues that don't always make front-page or top story.

I think it was quite proper for him to reference his position on PTSD, and even reference his family members who have served (and their experience with PTSD) on Memorial day. Regardless of whether I agree with his position or not. (As I said, I don't agree with the specific proposal unless there are more qualifications to it. And won't be voting for him anyways. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that it's important for him to state his positions when dealing with topics.)

Clinton broke that story Aeson, not the media. And then the hype wasn’t really about the comment itself, but rather Clinton’s criticism of Obama calling him “elitist.” Every bit of the commentary from the talking heads concerned Clinton’s comments, I can count on one hand the number of times I heard the actual Obama audio.

Your assertion that the media gave him a free pass on that issue is inane. I don't care what you've seen. Go type "bitter Obama" into YouTube and start watching clips. Sure there are media types to don't press the issue hard, but there are others who do.

It's mindbogglingly stupid to pretend that the media is a monolithic entity with only one viewpoint. There are right wing outlets, there are left wing outlets, other viewpoints, and each with various extents of said bias.

If this was a AA meating you would have a point, but then again they are establishing that connection for a reason too, aren’t then? How about that date? Now let’s apply that to a scheduled prestaged political event on Memorial Day. Exactly.

If he didn't talk about veterans and their concerns on Memorial Day he'd get lynched in the press. What do you expect him to do? Ignore his family members who served on Memorial Day? Just say, "You should vote for John McCain because he served and I didn't"? You have a completely unrealistic view on what a presidential candidate should do.