Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
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 later went on to say that you watched the video, and that confirmed your suspicions. You dropped the "suspect" or any such qualifications from your statements and offered it as a matter of fact that Obama was lying intentionally.

""Uncle" and "Auschwitz" were diliberatly chosen because people know about that/can relate to that." - Pat
"Perhaps your not paying attention, but its EVERYBODY jumping on him for an intentional deceitful exaggeration, not..." - Pat (showing blatant ignorance of who "EVERYBODY" consists of no less... )
"I am personally not so much criticizing him because of the lie itself, but more for his reasons for deciding to wheel this turd out in the first place." - Pat
"It was deliberatly changed it Auschwitz because people recognize the name." - Pat
"Obama knew what he was doing." - Pat
"The only legitimate excuse would be if his great uncle just said "death camp" and Obama assumed it was Auschwitz for the very same reason every American knows about Auschwitz. In that case, it was still stupid for him to do so for different reasons (and that Columbia should lose its accredidation), and no less a pathetic pander." - Pat (included just to show that you did allow for one possibility before watching the video... which obviously isn't the only possibility anyways.)
"I saw an actual clip last night. This was a prepared speech, so the off the cuff mess up excuse is out. Someone deliberatly wrote the comments that way, and his legion of staffers undoubtedly had time to fact check it. They simple chose not to tell the truth " - Pat

You're just full of ****. You got called on making your biased mind-reading, you went and tried to support your statements with strawmen, then when that didn't work you fell back to pretending it's not what you really meant. You made it clear enough what you really think. For someone mind-reading Obama's intent in a case where there is no flat out positive assertion, you sure weasel around and ask for a lot of leeway for your baseless and unqualified statements.

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.

I quoted it, you edited while I was responding. That's fine. You addressed my quoting of it and my response, which lead to the exchange we are having now. If you didn't want to address it, or just wanted to present your reasoning that it wasn't a real quote and you didn't want to support it, you should have done so before missing the point entirely, trying to mock me based on your ignorance, and then directly providing references when requested to do so for the specific quote.

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.

You claim such, but when I pointed out it was not a direct quote, you mocked me. I am sorry you lack the intellectual capacity necessary to understand what I was doing there. Sucks to be you.

I asked for a direct reference to the "quote" to establish the fact that there was no direct quote at all. You chose to try to mock me for pointing this out, which of course painted you into a corner where you had to provide a direct reference for the "quote" which we all know, and you admit, wasn't a quote at all. I continued to press you for the quote, to see if you would try to present something other than the quote as a reference for the quote. You did so, showing that you are not honest enough to admit that it wasn't a direct quote.

Now that I've pointed out that your "quote" did not appear in your reference, you've given up it seems, and admitted it wasn't a real quote. You should have done so from the start, but thanks for the laughs anyways.

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.

You are the one who replaced the "quote" with another."

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

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

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

You see, I asked for a reference to that quote. You mocked me because you failed to understand that I was pointing out your biased interpretation. The hilarious thing about this all, and what's had me cracking up the whole time (thanks ) was that this whole line of discussion isn't what you think it is at all. I was responding to rah, about the inconsistency between an assumed adept liar, and being "surprised" by a verifiable incorrect statement of fact (in this case, concentration camp name) attributed to such a person. You responded to that dichotomy with your made up quote, supposedly as "evidence". What you fail to understand is that it doesn't refute what I was saying at all, at best it's a confirmation of how an adept liar will not reference easily verifiable facts when making their claims. That is giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you understand that your reference is indeed not an easily verifiable fact. (A benefit of the doubt which you seemed quite intent on working very hard not to deserve).

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.

Your reasoning doesn't hold up as to the differentiation between the two in the context of out discussion. I did miss your initial quote, since you offered it in quote tags, and so it didn't show up when I responded. In flipping back to the actual page from the response page, I must have missed that quote since I assumed it was the next quote from me that you were responding to. (I was not expecting you to directly quote something, since I had been pressing you to provide a link to a quote which we both knew did not exist. Your ignorance or lack of scruple in that regard caught me off guard. And that is why I very much appreciate your adopted use of italics to denote quotes that are in response to quoted material.)

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.

Actually none of the reasoning is changed. I did address the entire response to Olbermann's question which you linked to in context. All the arguments I made still hold up whether you use "such" or "that".

That being, your offered summation is obviously a completely biased and twisted view of what he said, and not a real quote at all:

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

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 ignore that preachers will address different topics at different times. You also ignore that when addressing the national audience, he may very well address different issues than he normally would in church (especially when those subjects are raised by the interviewer).

We have been presented with a few minutes of what I'm sure we can both agree are stupid things the Rev has said, compiled out of 30 years of preaching. It's possible he always says those types of things while preaching. It's possible he's only said them very rarely, even just once in that manner. Possible too, and more likely, is that he addresses the subjects from time to time, in various manners, using different methods, approaches, but addresses a lot of other more mundane subject matter as well. I don't frequent his church, so obviously couldn't say. You pretend like you know though, please present your evidence.

I don't know how often Obama attended church there. He could be there every week, or just once in a while. The point being, it's possible that Obama simply wasn't in attendance when those things, or even those types of things, were said. It's also possible that he wasn't always paying attention. Remembering everything that happens in 20 years is not something most of us can do. But even that doesn't mean we were not paying attention for 20 years either.

As for the personal relationship, it's obvious that in personal discussion preachers are going to tend towards far different tactics. I don't know what, or how much, they would have personally discussed.

The lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence. You can guesstimate all you want. But AFAIK is there is no actual evidence to suggest that Obama was there when such comments were made. Just speculation based on speculation about how often the Rev said such things, how often Obama was in attendance, and how often Obama was paying attention. That may be enough evidence for you. That only shows how laughably biased you are in regards to this subject matter.

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

He obviously said that he'd heard the Rev say some controversial things, but never that incendiary language. It certainly is not an outrageous answer. It's quite possible that it's true, especially given how nebulously defined the controversial statements referred to are.

I never actually said I was quoting Obama until I provided the actual sourced direct quote, as it was pretty obvious I wasn’t.

I asked you for a direct reference to the "quote". You tried to mock me about that, not realizing you were just making a fool of yourself, and then in fact provided links in response to my continued request for a direct reference to the "quote". In doing so it was your implication that the links were to the direct "quote". In any case it obviously is your intent to pretend your "quote" is a summation of what Obama did say, and that is hilariously ignorant of you.

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.

You failed. On all accounts.

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

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

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

"No, I want a link to that direct quote you made. I had a feeling you couldn't provide one." - Aeson

"Your fellings fail you [provided links to quotes]" - Pat

So you see, you were presenting those reference as a direct reference to the specific quote, "I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years."

Good job arguing with yourself though

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.

Please tell us what he didn't say so I can confirm or deny your mind-reading about what I believe about what he didn't say.

(In case you still don't get it yet, even after my explanations about the prior cases... when I make requests like this they are rhetorical. I'm mocking you for making completely unsupportable claims.)

Only a desperately grasping internet denizen has to resort to your semantic manufacturing of content.

You're still claiming it's a paraphrase. When in fact it's a conjuration on your part. I wouldn't call what you are doing "semantic manufacturing of content" though, as that would insult semantic arguments. You are outright ignoring reality to make bald-faced assertions based on your bias and without any evidence to support your claims. Mind reading, crystal ball, and tinfoil hat... quite the "internet denizen" you are!

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.

Yes, it was VERY obvious you weren't directly quoting Aeson.

I was not pretending you were quoting Aeson.

I was pointing out how you were pretending to "quote" Obama. You still can't see the difference between your "quote" and what you eventually described as the "paraphrase". It's funny how you pretend it's the same thing, yet acknowledge it's so ridiculous to assume it was the same thing. You're essentially calling yourself an idiot, and doing an amazing job of it as well.

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.

It's not doubtful in the extreme. You're trying to make some statistical case based on a bunch of unknown factors. You don't know how often Obama attended this church. You don't know how often the Rev addressed such topics. You're just making up stuff to justify your preconceived view of Obama as a liar. Do you really have such a hard time finding valid issues to disagree with Obama on that you're forced into constantly nit-picking at things and mind-reading, where there's no evidence to derive a solid conclusion from? Then you dismiss Obama's only actual proposal in the whole damn mess as "unimportant" and instead jack-off to the tune of Obama saying he hadn't heard such comments from the Rev, or that he referred to his Great Uncle as Uncle, or that he said Auschwitz instead of Ohrdruf. (And invent your conspiracy theories about why he made those statements.) Those things are really important

You really need to take a step back from your anti-Obama bias a bit. Reality isn't that hard once you get the hang of it. I'm sure you could still find plenty of issues to disagree with Obama with if you do. Only in that case they'd be issues of substance, rather that inane partisanship about non-issues

[Patroklos]

Wow, you spent three days typing that and produced nothing relevant.

Congrats

For when you want to learn to properly quote someone, since you failed numerous times yet again:

[DinoDoc]

I'm the real winner here, Pat.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Wow, you spent three days typing that and produced nothing relevant.

No, actually I was visiting relatives over the weekend for my cousin's high-school graduation (who is really actually my second cousin... the horrors of me calling him my cousin as I always do!), and had very limited access to the internet, which was why I didn't have time to respond until this evening.

But thanks for conceding with the lame-o "nothing relevant". With a serving of "took you so long to respond" as topping

Pretty much sums up your debating abilities.

And in case anyone is looking for some laughs without searching through the rest of the more boring stuff:

Originally posted by Patroklos
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.

You failed. On all accounts.

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

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

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

"No, I want a link to that direct quote you made. I had a feeling you couldn't provide one." - Aeson

"Your fellings fail you [provided links to quotes]" - Pat

So you see, you were presenting those reference as a direct reference to the specific quote, "I didn't pay attention in church for 20 years."

Good job arguing with yourself though

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm the real winner here, Pat.

I'd have to agree. I responded to you initially in this thread (twice, though you even avoided my joke), and you somehow didn't end up typing pages of text.

Pat on the other hand dove right on in on his own volition, into a discussion I was having with rah no less.

[Patroklos]

You're the one ranting for no reason for pages Aeson. I mean LOOK at what you just posted, to no effect or purpose.

I'm the real winner here, Pat.

For sure.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'd have to agree. I responded to you initially in this thread (twice, though you even avoided my joke), and you somehow didn't end up typing pages of text.

In my defense, I didn't get your joke and it seemed as if you were trying to read too much into something I saw as a hahhah moment of the campaign.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You're the one ranting for no reason for pages Aeson. I mean LOOK at what you just posted, to no effect or purpose.

I post for my own purposes. One of which is mental exercise in responding to points someone else has made. The other, in this case, was the laughs provided by your inane lack of coherency. Going over your post in detail ensures I don't miss any of your flailing

And finally, it certainly did have some demonstrable effects. If you need me to explain to you what they are, feel free to ask. I am more than happy to instruct you in the ways of reality.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In my defense, I didn't get your joke and it seemed as if you were trying to read too much into something I saw as a hahhah moment of the campaign.

Sadly most of the campaign is a series of completely ridiculous and inane non-issues, decided in the end by how many people like D's or R's more. I don't let this lack of substance get in the way of a good political (sorta) debate though.

And my joke is awesome... you can't have won the thread without enjoying it. I retract my concession... especially since you're responding to me now

[Patroklos]

Going over your post in detail ensures I don't miss any of your flailing

Flailing would be you spending your free time writing pages of pretty much nothing. Obviously I feel so defeated by your rants I am simpky compeled respond in kind.

Or not.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Flailing would be you spending your free time writing pages of pretty much nothing.

Keep running away from the debate. It's there if you want to address it.

[Patroklos]

Everything I said is recorded here for posterity. Including your failure to address it in any sane fashion

Archives

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Everything I said is recorded here for posterity. Including your failure to address it in any sane fashion

Archives

Keep running away from the debate. It's there if you want to address it.

[Patroklos]

If you really want the last post Aeson, I will let you have it. I mean, we both know you will just resurrect the thread after days of abandonment to get it anyway. I have let you pretend you were debating all these pages, why not allow you one last petty indulgence?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If you really want the last post Aeson, I will let you have it. I mean, we both know you will just resurrect the thread after days of abandonment to get it anyway. I have let you pretend you were debating all these pages, why not allow you one last petty indulgence?

Keep running away from the debate. It's there if you want to address it.