Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by rah
I personally find this funny that you think it's an innocent mispeak. God, there are staffers that are supposed to be reviewing and checking this kind of crap.

Ah, so you think he will turn out like Bush?

JM

[rah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Ah, so you think he will turn out like Bush?

JM

No, not exactly Bush since that would take some real skill at being clueless, but yes I think he will turn out like every other lying politician.

He didn't need to embelish his story to make his point but chose to. Heck I embelish stories all the time, but I wouldn't be that stupid if I was running for president as a "change", "truth" candidate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Penises = republican (they are obsessed)

But they are afraid of admitting that they are, and you aren't. So you aren't really like them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But they are afraid of admitting that they are, and you aren't. So you aren't really like them.

I am not saying they are penises, I'm saying republicans like the c0ck.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, watch letterman almost any night of the week and they'll show a BUSH flub. Lots of camera time, lots of opportunities to flub.

Jokes are fine.

Pretending like a joke of an issue is an actual issue is stupid.

But this isn't a simple flubbed line. Yes I believe it was intentional, since his campaign group though it would sound better.

Just want to point out that you're making a positive statement about what it was based on "belief" and with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

He underestimated his audiance. You can't stretch the truth these days, since some blogger will be listening and the whole world will later be verifying. You're right, it makes no sense since it will just make him look like your typical lying politician. (which he loves to proclaim that he's not) He made a mistake trying to embelish a story.

Can't have it both ways.

It's patently obvious that a lie or mistaken reference caught on tape is going to be made into a detrimental issue. Yet you think neither he nor anyone in his campaign would realize this.

Then you use the reasoning that his campaign wouldn't make a mistake to support a conspiracy theory about why he said something incorrect in a speech. Your reasoning refutes itself rah. Even if you are correct about why this happened (the answer to which is unknown to us), your reasoning is fallacious and contradictory.

Yeah, while that is a shame, Obama only has himself to blame.

Obama is to blame for saying it, sure. (Exactly what "blame" is deserved is questionable.) For the reaction, no, he is not to blame. You have your own free will, Obama isn't forcing you into partisan knee-jerk reactions which ignore real issues. That's your choice that you've made for yourself.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

If you're trying to make a point you shouldn't alter the facts just to sound better. It take the focus off what you're trying to say.

Certainly the facts shouldn't be altered. My point is not that though, since I don't know if the facts were altered intentionally or not.

I personally find this funny that you think it's an innocent mispeak.

There you go again, trying to read minds. I haven't said it's an innocent misspeak.

- I've said it's a stupid issue, with people overreacting to the use of a term ("I am Macedonia").

- I've pointed out that it's inane to pretend like it couldn't be a misspeak, in response to a statement of "fact" that it wasn't.

- I've referenced that there have been other instances where he has clearly misspoken in speeches. (In case you were wondering, I was referring to his "57 states" comment.)

You see rah, I'm not an idiot. I don't know what it was, and don't pretend I know what Obama and his campaign was thinking. I allow for the possibility that it was an "innocent misspeak" rather than invent some conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense at all. But I don't go so far as to say it was a misspeak. I certainly never said anything about innocence (and have been rather clear that I don't think an presidential candidate would qualify as such in general.) I've just argue against those who make positive claims about what it was based on their crystal balls, tinfoil hats, and disregard for logic.

God, there are staffers that are supposed to be reviewing and checking this kind of crap.

To pretend that because someone has staffers that Obama couldn't have mentioned the wrong concentration camp name without it being intentional is ludicrous.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought you'd be happy that a US candiate was claiming a family history in the Soviet army.

I heard the story in the local news the day before you posted it here.

Honestly, I don't care who will win. Obama looks like a liar. Clinton is anti-Russian biatch. McCain is even more anti-Russian biatch (he is my favorite, I hope he will continue the King George Junior's course on destruction of USA. Go McCain, go! WE need you as US president!). So, no matter who wins - nothing will change for Russia. It will be the same double talking, double faced, double standards American crap. You really need Arnie as a president. He loves Russia (I hope).

[Patroklos]

It's patently obvious that a lie or mistaken reference caught on tape is going to be made into a detrimental issue. Yet you think neither he nor anyone in his campaign would realize this.

Since they routinely alter the details of his past and other things with little resultant fallout I see no reason for them to assume their media vassals would turn on them in this instance.

In fact, its pretty obvious these days they are expecting people to give him a pass, it is Lord Obama after all. If they harange him at all it is over Clinton or McCain's reaction to his lies/gaffes, not thier own independant critisisms.

You have your own free will, Obama isn't forcing you into partisan knee-jerk reactions which ignore real issues. That's your choice that you've made for yourself.

Who is ignoring the issue?

The sad thing is that Obama is making a mockery of his transparent concern for that issue by assuming his little anecdote adds any valididy to his credability on this topic, which is none.

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.

[Arrian]

Ah, Serb.

[rah]

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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Since they routinely alter the details of his past and other things with little resultant fallout I see no reason for them to assume their media vassals would turn on them in this instance.

In fact, its pretty obvious these days they are expecting people to give him a pass, it is Lord Obama after all. If they harange him at all it is over Clinton or McCain's reaction to his lies/gaffes, not thier own independant critisisms.

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

Who is ignoring the issue?

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

That is ignoring the important issue and dealing with a strawman.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher


I am not saying they are penises, I'm saying republicans like the c0ck.

I know they have an unnatural attraction to male authority, but...

[DinoDoc]

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

He might be a NBC viewer, Aeson.

[rah]

That's it.
He intentional did this because if he didn't, his speach wouldn't have been reported on at all. It was all an attempt to highlight his position on PTSD.

[DinoDoc]

I don't really think he intentionally did it, rah. I just don't think he cared enoughabout a supposedly important family story to be bothered to relay it correctly. As for Aeson's point, if Obama couldn't be bothered to care about his story, why should we?

[DinoDoc]

Speaking during a town hall meeting in Billings, Mont., Senator Obama fired back at Senator McCain. “Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.” - May 19, 2008

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/mccain-and-obama-trade-barbs-on-iran/?hp

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us. - May 18, 2008

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTRiYmY1ZWMxODZkZjFlYTk3NDRiMDZmN2MzY2YxMjc=