PDA

jAZ
03-17-2008, 08:42 AM
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php

Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column
17 Mar 2008 07:11 am

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.
The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon.

One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines:

Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

banyon
03-17-2008, 09:03 AM
Wait, are you saying Denise was wrong and too eager to believe the story?

I am shocked. Shocked.

Cochise
03-17-2008, 09:05 AM
Newsmax getting something wrong doesn't improve his wafer-thin defense that he was ignorant of his pastor's rantings for over 20 years.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 09:05 AM
Wait, are you saying Denise was wrong and too eager to believe the story?

I am shocked. Shocked.

She, patteeu and Bill Kristol.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 09:24 AM
Wait, are you saying Denise was wrong and too eager to believe the story?

I am shocked. Shocked.

Whether the newsmax story was wrong or not, I can't say. But I can defend memyselfi here. She specifically expressed reservation about relying on newsmax and taking their word as gospel.

banyon
03-17-2008, 09:30 AM
Whether the newsmax story was wrong or not, I can't say. But I can defend memyselfi here. She specifically expressed reservation about relying on newsmax and taking their word as gospel.

Strange times indeed. I would think you must have thrown up a little in your mouth just then. :)

patteeu
03-17-2008, 09:34 AM
She, patteeu and Bill Kristol.

As I pointed out to banyon, memyselfi wasn't wrong. Bill Kristol described the report accurately. And I'll rely on the probabilities being in my favor in terms of whether or not Obama has ever been nodding in the pews when his pastor made controversial statements. It's beyond belief that Obama remained unaware of his pastor's sentiments for 19 years. And btw, I'm not willing to accept that video evidence as proof that Obama didn't attend TUCC that morning. When someone tells me they have proof, I expect to see actual proof.

Did you see the way the entire congregation was getting into it when Wright was railing on the sins of America? Obama was surrounding himself with all of these people for all those years, not just Wright.

pikesome
03-17-2008, 09:36 AM
Strange times indeed. I would think you must have thrown up a little in your mouth just then. :)

I had to re-read it to make sure I understood his post the first time.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 09:43 AM
Newsmax getting something wrong doesn't improve his wafer-thin defense that he was ignorant of his pastor's rantings for over 20 years.

Well, Obama didn't say that either. He said he was no aware of the pastor making these rantings repeatedly at his church sermons.
Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure he chose his words carefully despite Kristol's and the right's spin. Kristol has more lies to him than Obama.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 09:54 AM
Well, Obama didn't say that either. He said he was no aware of the pastor making these rantings repeatedly at his church sermons.
Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure he chose his words carefully despite Kristol's and the right's spin. Kristol has more lies to him than Obama.

In this Obama statement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html), he said the controversial statements first came to his attention when he started his campaign for POTUS. He didn't say anything about the frequency of these types of sermons. Since you've emphasized this "repeatedly" thing twice now, do you have a link?

patteeu
03-17-2008, 09:55 AM
I had to re-read it to make sure I understood his post the first time.

I've been waiting over 5 years to find something to defend her on. ;)

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:01 AM
In this Obama statement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html), he said the controversial statements first came to his attention when he started his campaign for POTUS. He didn't say anything about the frequency of these types of sermons. Since you've emphasized this "repeatedly" thing twice now, do you have a link?

No I don't. Since when is a link proof? As I stated before, which you conveniently forget, is that I personally witnessed what he said on FOX last week. That's better than a link. He used the word "repeatedly". It's way to common to paraphrase these things which don't say it the same to alter the meaning even slightly.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:05 AM
In this Obama statement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html), he said the controversial statements first came to his attention when he started his campaign for POTUS. He didn't say anything about the frequency of these types of sermons. Since you've emphasized this "repeatedly" thing twice now, do you have a link?
I know why you chose not to include the actual quote here... it makes you wide-net strategy harder to support, and you are more interested in trying to win a debate and take down a political opponent, than getting to the facts...

But here's the quote, for the record...

"...the statements that have been the subject of this controversy...".

This controversy that he was responding to was the repeated "God Damn America" statements.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:07 AM
No I don't. Since when is a link proof? As I stated before, which you conveniently forget, is that I personally witnessed what he said on FOX last week. That's better than a link. He used the word "repeatedly". It's way to common to paraphrase these things which don't say it the same to alter the meaning even slightly.

BEP, he's made multiple statements and as you'd expect, the wording is slightly different depending upon the interview. But the consistent thing about it is that he's responding to the "god damn america" controversy.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:16 AM
No I don't. Since when is a link proof? As I stated before, which you conveniently forget, is that I personally witnessed what he said on FOX last week. That's better than a link. He used the word "repeatedly". It's way to common to paraphrase these things which don't say it the same to alter the meaning even slightly.

But you expect others to constrain their comments on the basis of something you say you saw that isn't reflected in the Obama comment that was posted on this website? I don't think that's very reasonable, particularly with your history of seeing what you want to see at times.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:20 AM
I know why you chose not to include the actual quote here... it makes you wide-net strategy harder to support, and you are more interested in trying to win a debate and take down a political opponent, than getting to the facts...

But here's the quote, for the record...

"...the statements that have been the subject of this controversy...".

This controversy that he was responding to was the repeated "God Damn America" statements.

You see me in the same sinister light you see Karl Rove, don't you?

I didn't quote the article because it's been posted here before and because I didn't think there was a need to quote it to prove that "repeatedly" wasn't a part of it.

But I agree with you. Obama is trying to obfuscate through the use of very specific language. He's trying to make this denial of knowledge of one or two specific comments sound like a denial of knowledge of all similar comments. Just like a regular, same ol' same ol' politician. Change!

Cochise
03-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Obama is trying to obfuscate through the use of very specific language. He's trying to make this denial of knowledge of one or two specific comments sound like a denial of knowledge of all similar comments.

Precisely.

Clintonian, dare I say. Kerryesque?

Or would a better comparison be to the Iced tea defence?

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:30 AM
But you expect others to constrain their comments on the basis of something you say you saw that isn't reflected in the Obama comment that was posted on this website? I don't think that's very reasonable, particularly with your history of seeing what you want to see at times.

You do the same thing by omitting other statements I witnessed. In fact you're the partisan here, not me. So quite accusing me of what you're doing. Projection. I expect all of them to be considered and in context too. So I will bring up the other including the one Obama said in direct response to the specific question on this event.

I think Obama, since he is a liberal, was and is attracted to the idea of community organization involving local churches such as his own, since they do a lot of this to help their people out. But this doesn't necessarily mean he embraces all their sentiments because they're unworkable. He was educated at a mainstream liberal university and seems to be trying to introduce a new way to bridge the old black politics to the new. I don't think this is unreasonable if one goes back and reads more on him.

Seems to me he'd be best suited to remain in local politics or congress since a president reps the nation as a whole more.

For instance from 1995

Obama thinks elected officials could do much to overcome the political paralysis of the nation's black communities. He thinks they could lead their communities out of twin culs-de-sac: the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation--which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to "move up, get rich, and move out"--and the equally impractical politics of black rage and black nationalism--which exhorts but does not organize ordinary folks or create realistic agendas for change.

banyon
03-17-2008, 10:32 AM
ooh, not the dreaded "Projection1!1!!". Patty you'll never psychologically recover. You may need intensive psychotherapy after this.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 10:34 AM
Weren't Newsmax also the ones pedaling the madrassa story that Fox News picked up? Or was that someone else?

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:39 AM
Weren't Newsmax also the ones pedaling the madrassa story that Fox News picked up? Or was that someone else?

That was someone else.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:43 AM
ooh, not the dreaded "Projection1!1!!". Patty you'll never psychologically recover. You may need intensive psychotherapy after this.

At least I'm not deflecting. lol

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:46 AM
At least I'm not deflecting. lol

No you're not. But you're definitely doing what you say I'm doing or you wouldn't see it.
Once again you're the partisan. I'm tryin' to see how it could be the other way.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:52 AM
He's trying to make this denial of knowledge of one or two specific comments sound like a denial of knowledge of all similar comments. Just like a regular, same ol' same ol' politician. Change!
Actually, I think he's simply denying knowing these specific comments. You are hoping to make it into more than that.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:55 AM
Actually, I think he's simply denying knowing these specific comments. You are hoping to make it into more than that.

Exactly.

Partisan's can speak their opinion but they don't belong on the jury.:D

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:58 AM
No you're not. But you're definitely doing what you say I'm doing or you wouldn't see it.
Once again you're the partisan. I'm tryin' to see how it could be the other way.

I'm still waiting to see him encourage the raging black nationalists to step on his conveniently unspecified bridge.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:59 AM
I'm sure you are. Just waitin' to bring him down.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Actually, I think he's simply denying knowing these specific comments. You are hoping to make it into more than that.

:LOL: Your faux innocence is priceless.

StcChief
03-17-2008, 11:03 AM
compared to the Left's consistently false reporting a drop in the bucket

patteeu
03-17-2008, 11:13 AM
compared to the Left's consistently false reporting a drop in the bucket

We shouldn't be too quick to accept jAZ's conclusion that the report is false. Contrary to his bold claim, the so-called video evidence isn't dispositive at all.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 11:14 AM
compared to the Left's consistently false reporting a drop in the bucket
Including a NeoCon like Bill Kristol who actually believes in the noble lie.
You guys can be the prosecution, the Obama-fans the defense....and I'll be on the jury.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 11:23 AM
We shouldn't be too quick to accept jAZ's conclusion that the report is false. Contrary to his bold claim, the so-called video evidence isn't dispositive at all.

How does it feel to be even more detached from reality than Bill Kristol?

"In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 11:30 AM
How does it feel to be even more detached from reality than Bill Kristol?
"In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html

LMAO

Owned

memyselfI
03-17-2008, 11:30 AM
Like I said, it's Spewsmax thus we should be weary. But what I would like to know is if Spewsmax was wrong why didn't Obama demand a retraction last July?

Afterall, if you knew that something untrue had been written about you and a potential controversy was lurking out there wouldn't you want that clarification on the record BEFORE the controversy ensues?

Afterall, skeptics are pointing out that it would be possible for him to be in church and still in Miami later that morning. Me, I'm not sure if he was in church but I'd like to know why he'd wait to deny the story if it were not true.

memyselfI
03-17-2008, 11:32 AM
I've been waiting over 5 years to find something to defend her on. ;)

Patt, you are really being to sully my reputation. ;) :thumb: :p

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 11:34 AM
Like I said, it's Spewsmax thus we should be weary. But what I would like to know is if Spewsmax was wrong why didn't Obama demand a retraction last July?

Afterall, if you knew that something untrue had been written about you and a potential controversy was lurking out there wouldn't you want that clarification on the record BEFORE the controversy ensues?

Afterall, skeptics are pointing out that it would be possible for him to be in church and still in Miami later that morning. Me, I'm not sure if he was in church but I'd like to know why he'd wait to deny the story if it were not true.

So Obama should come out and deny that he had a homosexual relationship and did drugs with that guy who posted the video on YouTube as well? Hell a online site gave the guy $10,000 to take a polygraph and he failed miserably. You can't go around and refute every little stupid story or you would never get anything done. You're stupid Cochise 03-17-2008, 11:36 AM This place reminds me a lot of the article about the Clinton bloggers leaving whatever nutjob website it was, because the BObots had become so ruthless and off-putting that they didn't even want to be around them anymore. For a guy running a smile campaign his people couldn't be more unlike him. memyselfI 03-17-2008, 11:38 AM So Obama should come out and deny that he had a homosexual relationship and did drugs with that guy who posted the video on YouTube as well? Hell a online site gave the guy$10,000 to take a polygraph and he failed miserably.

You can't go around and refute every little stupid story or you would never get anything done.You're stupid

Ah, you would deny it if you could. If you can't you refuse to acknowledge the question or deny based on the specificity of the date... :doh!:

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9990-1

Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.

memyselfI
03-17-2008, 11:41 AM
This place reminds me a lot of the article about the Clinton bloggers leaving whatever nutjob website it was, because the BObots had become so ruthless and off-putting that they didn't even want to be around them anymore. For a guy running a smile campaign his people couldn't be more unlike him.

I suspect by the time November rolls around the guy's faux image of him being a uniter and a non-politician will be shot. MOF, I suspect that many people will be MORE suspicious of him and hold him to a higher and almost impossible standard because he's been so Gdamn(America) self righteous.

orange
03-17-2008, 11:42 AM
Obama was in Chicago and in Miami that day, July 22:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/22/

"But according to the Washington Post's presidential tracker, Obama did, in fact, make an "appearance" in Chicago on the morning in question: July 22, 2002. He also, later in the day, flew to Miami for a speech.

Obama's spokesperson Tommy Vietor confirmed that the schedule was accurate but stressed that the senator did not make a stop at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

"We have reviewed his schedule," he wrote. "He didn't go to church that day." "

Which is perfectly plausible. Just because Obama was in Chicago doesn't mean he attended church. But he was, in fact, in Chicago that morning."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/obama-was-in-chicago-the-_n_91876.html

The question that is begging to be asked is "What was that "Appearance" in Chicago that Obama attended?"

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 11:49 AM
Ah, you would deny it if you could. If you can't you refuse to acknowledge the question or deny based on the specificity of the date... :doh!:

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9990-1

My point still remains no candidate can go around and refute every stupid little story that people make up.

memyselfI
03-17-2008, 12:44 PM

My point still remains no candidate can go around and refute every stupid little story that people make up.

That story has not been mentioned one time in the MSM. It remains gossip just as last week's Tabloid Globe * story about him being gay that was the front cover.

(*I think it was. I saw it while standing in line at the grocery store)

jAZ
03-17-2008, 12:50 PM
That story has not been mentioned one time in the MSM. It remains gossip just as last week's Tabloid Globe * story about him being gay that was the front cover.

(*I think it was. I saw it while standing in line at the grocery store)

You pretend like NewsMax circa July 22nd was something other than a tabloid.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 12:55 PM
That story has not been mentioned one time in the MSM. It remains gossip just as last week's Tabloid Globe * story about him being gay that was the front cover.

(*I think it was. I saw it while standing in line at the grocery store)

I know Jaz just mentioned this but NewsMax isn't mainstream either.

Also add to the fact that some online site gave that turd \$10,000 to come take a polygraph and of course he failed.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 12:57 PM
LMAO

UPDATE: It goes from bad to worse. The Newsmax reporter now writes that the sermon he was referring to could have been on any given Sunday of July 2007. And Bill Kristol has added the following correction to his column online:
In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.
For the record, Obama was in Chicago on July 15, 2007, according to the Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/15/).

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:18 PM
LMAO

Owned

Haha, yeah he really owned me for insisting on waiting for actual evidence instead of taking his word for it. :rolleyes:

I'm willing to trust Kristol if he says he's actually seen proof, but what jAZ showed us wasn't proof.

How does it feel to be even more detached from reality than Bill Kristol?

Obama's campaign didn't send me any proof. I still haven't seen any, but I'll assume Kristol has until I find out otherwise.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:22 PM
This place reminds me a lot of the article about the Clinton bloggers leaving whatever nutjob website it was, because the BObots had become so ruthless and off-putting that they didn't even want to be around them anymore. For a guy running a smile campaign his people couldn't be more unlike him.

Unite or else, idiots!

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 02:22 PM
That story has not been mentioned one time in the MSM.

It was mentioned on Morning Joe this morning.

Anything else you want to be wrong about?

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 02:25 PM
Haha, yeah he really owned me for insisting on waiting for actual evidence instead of taking his word for it. :rolleyes:

I'm willing to trust Kristol if he says he's actually seen proof, but what jAZ showed us wasn't proof.

Obama's campaign didn't send me any proof. I still haven't seen any, but I'll assume Kristol has until I find out otherwise.

LMAO

You are sure hard to please. I feel sorry for your wife\gf\bf. :)

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:25 PM
Haha, yeah he really owned me for insisting on waiting for actual evidence instead of taking his word for it. :rolleyes:

I'm willing to trust Kristol if he says he's actually seen proof, but what jAZ showed us wasn't proof.

ROFL

You've become a complete clown.

A propaganda-tablioid provides NO evidence what so ever, but that's more then enough for you. In order for their accusation to be false, you need more than video evidence that he was in Miami later that day.

ROFL

But if Kristol or NewsMax tells you to jump... well...

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:29 PM
Whether the July 22 incident reported by newsmax ends up panning out or not (either as reported or from some other date in July '07), I think Obamists are playing with fire if they base their case on the idea that Obama was never present during one of these controversial rants. The chances that Obama was never there during a controversial sermon have to be close to zero and someone is going to come up with something showing that to be the case, IMO.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 02:34 PM
Whether the July 22 incident reported by newsmax ends up panning out or not (either as reported or from some other date in July '07), I think Obamists are playing with fire if they base their case on the idea that Obama was never present during one of these controversial rants. The chances that Obama was never there during a controversial sermon have to be close to zero and someone is going to come up with something showing that to be the case, IMO.

I don't have a problem with that. If there is evidence that he was there and was jumping up and down and applauding controversial statements his campaign is over.

But he wasn't there on July 22 which makes this story factually incorrect and a lie.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:36 PM
I think Obamists are playing with fire if they base their case on the idea that Obama was never present during one of these controversial rants. The chances that Obama was never there during a controversial sermon have to be close to zero and someone is going to come up with something showing that to be the case, IMO.
That's your claim, not mine or theirs. And it's your's because "controversial sermon" is whatever you (clinton/GOPers) decide that they can get away objecting to.

Obama has been very specific about his claims, despite your efforts here to create a net of your own making and then claim he's caught up in it.

mlyonsd
03-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Interesting thing is if the tables were turned and a picture surfaced of McCain simply shaking hands with this Wright guy there would be 10 more threads in this forum by the libs of the board denouncing him in one way or another. Which wouldn't even come close to being the same as Wright being a member of Obama's campaign.

All in all I'd say probably just a bad judgement call on Obama's part for embracing Wright, but fair cannon fodder just the same.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:36 PM
ROFL

You've become a complete clown.

A propaganda-tablioid provides NO evidence what so ever, but that's more then enough for you. In order for their accusation to be false, you need more than video evidence that he was in Miami later that day.

ROFL

But if Kristol or NewsMax tells you to jump... well...

More name calling. Lovely. The "propaganda-tabloid" (that hasn't been held up as an entirely credible news source by anyone here, btw) provided an eye-witness account. Like it or not, despite coming from newsmax, that's evidence.

Your video didn't qualify as an alibi without more information to show that he couldn't have possibly made it to the appearance after attending the church service. Since you and your propaganda-blog didn't bother to provide that additional detail, your video falls far short of proof.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:38 PM
I don't have a problem with that. If there is evidence that he was there and was jumping up and down and applauding controversial statements his campaign is over.

But he wasn't there on July 22 which makes this story factually incorrect and a lie.

Assuming it's true that Obama's campaign can prove he wasn't there on Jully 22, it makes the date wrong and it brings the rest of the report into doubt. It doesn't disprove the entire account though.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:38 PM
Whether the July 22 incident reported by newsmax ends up panning out or not ...
I guess this is your best effort to avoid admitting that you've become a clown by demanding Obama provide even greater evidence that already provided to disprove a statement that is supported by NO evidece what-so-ever.

You lose credibility every time you act like this.

:shake:

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:39 PM
Like it or not, despite coming from newsmax, that's evidence.
It's an accusation, not evidence.

Clown.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 02:39 PM
More name calling. Lovely. The "propaganda-tabloid" (that hasn't been held up as an entirely credible news source by anyone here, btw) provided an eye-witness account. Like it or not, despite coming from newsmax, that's evidence.

Your video didn't qualify as an alibi without more information to show that he couldn't have possibly made it to the appearance after attending the church service. Since you and your propaganda-blog didn't bother to provide that additional detail, your video falls far short of proof.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Patteeu in all fairness NewMax is backing off their claim as I posted above.

The Newsmax reporter now writes that the sermon he was referring to could have been on any given Sunday of July 2007

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 02:41 PM
7/22 NEVAR FORGET

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Your video didn't qualify as an alibi without more information to show that he couldn't have possibly made it to the appearance after attending the church service. Since you and your propaganda-blog didn't bother to provide that additional detail, your video falls far short of proof.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
You don't understand the difference between...

accusation < evidence < proof.

You are accepting NewsMax's accustion sans evidence as >> than Obama's denial plus evidence (but not proof).

Like I said. Save yourself.

banyon
03-17-2008, 02:45 PM
>>?

vailpass
03-17-2008, 02:48 PM
Wow, the obamaniacs are getting their undies in a twist over this one. I do't think I've ever seen Jaz resort to name calling.Guess seeing your boy begin to take his lumps isn't easy for you huh? Babydaddy is going to go through a whole lot more of this before it's over. It's gonna' be interesting to see what they can dig up.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 02:49 PM
>>?
Yes, indeed. :)

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:50 PM
Patteeu in all fairness NewMax is backing off their claim as I posted above.

They're backing off the date, as I posted above.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 02:54 PM
They're backing off the date, as I posted above.

Did we say July? We totally meant June.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:54 PM
You don't understand the difference between...

accusation < evidence < proof.

You are accepting NewsMax's accustion sans evidence as >> than Obama's denial plus evidence (but not proof).

Like I said. Save yourself.

You're making things up. An eye-witness account is evidence whether it's also an initial accusation or not. Where do you come up with these crazy ideas?

03-17-2008, 07:31 PM
Again, from a political POV, I don't know why you don't just run away from the comments and the man. There are a lot of strange contradictions in this story (why distance yourself from the man when you launch your campaign but praise the same man as someone you seek the counsel of a few months later?). Ultimately, if he's in the church as Newsmax describes then it will become much more difficult to overcome. Absent that it probably won't have any real lasting impact.

03-17-2008, 07:34 PM
You're making things up. An eye-witness account is evidence whether it's also an initial accusation or not. Where do you come up with these crazy ideas?

Gotta side, for the moment, with Jaz on this one. But Newsmax's update on the story should sort it all out soon since it claims there were secret service personnel also in attendance that, presumably, there would be some record of where they were somewhere.

Logical
03-18-2008, 12:15 AM
In this Obama statement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html), he said the controversial statements first came to his attention when he started his campaign for POTUS. He didn't say anything about the frequency of these types of sermons. Since you've emphasized this "repeatedly" thing twice now, do you have a link?

She is talking about his answers on the Fox, MSNBC and Anderson Cooper on CNN during their interviews with him Friday (he said the same thing in all three interviews) no link but I will look for a You Tube

Logical
03-18-2008, 12:49 AM
Here you go patteeu a link to what BEP and I heard on FOX

GARRETT: Sir, would you have -- would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?
OBAMA: You know, I guess -- keep in mind that, just to provide more context, this is somebody who I had known for 20 years. Pastor Wright has been a pastor for 30 years. He's an ex-Marine. He is somebody who is a biblical scholar, has spoken at theological seminaries all across the country, from the University of Chicago to Hampton. And so he is a well- regarded preacher. And somebody who is known for talking about the social gospel.
But most of the time, when I'm in church, he's talking about Jesus, God, faith, values, caring for the poor, those -- family, those were the messages that I was hearing.
And so you know, I think that the statements that have been strung together are compiled out of hundred of sermons that he delivered over the course of his lifetime. But, obviously, they are ones that are, from my perspective, completely unacceptable and inexcusable.
And if I had thought that that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis of his sermons, then, yes, I don't think that it would have been reflective of my values or my faith experience.
GARRETT: So, quick yes or no. If had you heard them in person you would have quit?
OBAMA: If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. I mean, obviously, understand that -- understand that, you know, this is somebody who is like an uncle. If you have -- to me. He's somebody who helped me find Christ. And somebody who always talked to me in very powerful ways about relationship to God and our obligations to the poor.
If somebody makes a mistake, then obviously, you recognize -- I make mistakes. We all make mistakes. If I thought that that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn't feel comfortable there.
But, frankly, that has not been my experience at Trinity United Church of Christ.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_talks_to_major_garrett_o.html

patteeu
03-18-2008, 06:36 AM
Gotta side, for the moment, with Jaz on this one. But Newsmax's update on the story should sort it all out soon since it claims there were secret service personnel also in attendance that, presumably, there would be some record of where they were somewhere.

I have a lot of respect for you RINGLEADER, so I have to assume you are misinterpreting my disagreement with jAZ on this one. I'm not saying that the newsmax account is true in any way. I don't know if it is or not. I'm just saying that eyewitness testimony is evidence even if it's also an allegation. That's not to say that the evidence can't be impeached and found to be completely inaccurate. My point is simply that being the first to make an allegation doesn't diminish the evidentiary value of your eyewitness testimony. Obviously, it's not self-corroborating so the corroborative effect of having eyewitness testimony in addition to an independent allegation makes for a more persuasive package, but that's a completely different story.

Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a court from convicting a defendant on the basis of an uncorroborated eyewitness allegation. In that case, the evidentiary value of the eyewitness account has been deemed credible enough to constitute proof.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 06:39 AM
Here you go patteeu a link to what BEP and I heard on FOX

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_talks_to_major_garrett_o.html

Thanks for the link and quote, Ill-Logical. I'm afraid that I've lost the ability to trust BEP's uncorroborated accounts of the things she claims to have seen or read after seeing her get it wrong too many times. Your verification that you'd seen the same thing on a specific network would have probably been adequate to satisfy me, but your link is much appreciated and removes all doubt.

03-18-2008, 08:46 AM
Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a court from convicting a defendant on the basis of an uncorroborated eyewitness allegation. In that case, the evidentiary value of the eyewitness account has been deemed credible enough to constitute proof.

True, true. But this is politics, not a trial. If a video of him exists or if more videos of similarly incindiary statements emerges then the story will continue and it will become harder for him to win.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 08:59 AM
True, true. But this is politics, not a trial. If a video of him exists or if more videos of similarly incindiary statements emerges then the story will continue and it will become harder for him to win.

I don't disagree with that at all. Or with the notion that the newsmax guy's testimony is suspect given the apparent alibi that Obama produced. My problem with jAZ is, first, his exaggerated claim that he was providing proof that the newsmax story was false (when he wasn't) and, second, his exaggeration in the opposite direction when he said the newsmax story was without any evidence whatsoever (despite the fact that it was based on an eyewitness account).

StcChief
03-18-2008, 09:17 AM
[quote=patteeu;4635270]We shouldn't be too quick to accept jAZ's conclusion that the report is false. Contrary to his bold claim, the so-called video evidence isn't dispositive at all.[/quote

]I'm not sure what's true or false... the fact Bark Obama is a member of this whacko's church speaks volumes about what he's been listening to for years....

The number of false /misleading reporting on all subject relating to the right by NYT etc and rarely retracting their false statement, or put the retraction statement on page 12.... says more about their agenda than one incident by newsmax getting a date wrong.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:53 PM
It has to be brought up.

Now that Obama has admitted to sitting through Wright sermons that contained ideas that were hateful why did he continue to take his family to church there?

go bowe
03-18-2008, 09:13 PM
... I can defend memyselfi here...Blasphemy!!!

someone get the tongue-pulling-out equipment...

and stack more wood around that stake, we going to want a nice bright fire... :fire:

memyselfI
03-18-2008, 09:15 PM
It has to be brought up.

Now that Obama has admitted to sitting through Wright sermons that contained ideas that were hateful why did he continue to take his family to church there?

Because he found Pastor Wright inspiring and insightful? :doh!:

Messier
03-18-2008, 09:19 PM
It has to be brought up.

Now that Obama has admitted to sitting through Wright sermons that contained ideas that were hateful why did he continue to take his family to church there?

When did he admit to sitting through sermons that were hateful?

go bowe
03-18-2008, 09:39 PM
It's an accusation, not evidence.

Clown. :o) ????

:jester: ????

can you PROVE he has a big red nose?

patteeu
03-19-2008, 07:31 AM
When did he admit to sitting through sermons that were hateful?

Oh boy, here comes the parsing over weasel words. :rolleyes:

Here's a challenge for you. What exactly *did* Obama admit to sitting through?

CHIEF4EVER
03-19-2008, 07:41 AM
Oh boy, here comes the parsing over weasel words. :rolleyes:

Here's a challenge for you. What exactly *did* Obama admit to sitting through?

He wasn't present during ANY of the controversial sermons, just the ones about holding hands and singing kumbaya or raising money for crippled kids, widows and orphans. Don't you know anything? :shake: