- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?
Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?Follow
I'm cool with "careless". It's not as though Obama is planning policy based off of which specific concentration camp his extended family has visited.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oh for Christ's sake, there are bigger issues at stake than this gaffe. If for nothing else, I find it fascinating that the republicans are now criticizing Obama's lack of service whereas before, with Bush, they minimized the importance of service. Either way, the pandering that happens in regard to the military issue is particularly irritating given the slashing of aid to veterans and the endless deployments of those serving. That's relevant. Not this ****.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
It's just filling news cycles since there's no new Dem primary news. Pretty much a dead issue now though with even the usual slate backing off of the story. Now that the veterans of the 89th have basically compared those who'd diminish the liberation of Buchenwald with Holocaust deniers, I doubt you'll see a lot of "Pfftt.... only his great-uncle and only Buchenwald?"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Commander Annabella wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, there are bigger issues at stake than this gaffe. If for nothing else, I find it fascinating that the republicans are now criticizing Obama's lack of service whereas before, with Bush, they minimized the importance of service. Either way, the pandering that happens in regard to the military issue is particularly irritating given the slashing of aid to veterans and the endless deployments of those serving. That's relevant. Not this sh*t.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
Getting angry Anna-style
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Jophiel wrote:
It's just filling news cycles since there's no new Dem primary news. Pretty much a dead issue now though with even the usual slate backing off of the story. Now that the veterans of the 89th have basically compared those who'd diminish the liberation of Buchenwald with Holocaust deniers, I doubt you'll see a lot of "Pfftt.... only his great-uncle and only Buchenwald?"
I take issue with saying it's comparable to Mrs. Clinton claiming to have been under sniper fire in Bosnia. Not knowing or misrepresenting one's own history seems far more questionable than not knowing or misrepresenting a second-hand story of something that happened, however it happened, before you were born.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Commander Annabella wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, there are bigger issues at stake than this gaffe. If for nothing else, I find it fascinating that the republicans are now criticizing Obama's lack of service whereas before, with Bush, they minimized the importance of service. Either way, the pandering that happens in regard to the military issue is particularly irritating given the slashing of aid to veterans and the endless deployments of those serving. That's relevant. Not this sh*t.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
God, can't we ever just talk about the actual issues in a campaign rather than the Sturm und drang? And I'll really say, I don't think the critics really care. They just want to nail him on whatever they can, even if it isn't important rather than talk about his record or what he stands for. It's just like the whole fake thing about calling Obama a Muslim, which is annoying for a variety of reasons.
Getting angry Anna-style
Anger makes me happy.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Elinda wrote:
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
A national tragedy indeed.
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Elinda wrote:
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
A national tragedy indeed.
I miss your avatar. As a member of the OOT, I enjoy amusing pictures of cats, preferably with some misspelled words that anthropomorphise the animal. I say, Bravo and hope that one day, you can be our socioemotional ideal.
Edited, May 29th 2008 2:08pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Yeah sheesh, it's not even front page news on most major sites. It's so last week.
It's not on any of those front pages. It was last weeks news. I was saying sheesh to Anna's RAWR-attack.
Lay off the coffee?
It was obviously not "intentional". Obama knows that everything he says, every detail of every story, is gonna get endlessly dissected and verified by everyone and his great uncle. And not only what he says, but what the other 2 candidates say as well.
So I doubt he thought "hey, this time I might just get away with telling a porky since it will never occur to anyone that Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. Also, impossible to prove! Genius."
I'll go with "careless" too.
So I doubt he thought "hey, this time I might just get away with telling a porky since it will never occur to anyone that Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. Also, impossible to prove! Genius."
I'll go with "careless" too.
NephthysWanderer wrote:
Lay off the coffee?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Lay on the coffee?
That could work.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I take issue with saying it's comparable to Mrs. Clinton claiming to have been under sniper fire in Bosnia.
Me, too. Fabricating an intentional lie you then repeat multiple times to bolster your credibility isn't in the same ballpark as mistaking which **** camp your dead relatives fought near.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Jophiel wrote:
Lies are, by definition, intentional.
Hah! The world is now complete...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Ummm.... ok?
Edited, May 29th 2008 6:02pm by Jophiel
Edited, May 29th 2008 6:02pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You complete his world Joph. I think he's asking you out on a date. ;)
I'm gonna need flowers first. As for my statement, according to the American Heritage, I'm right!
...but Merriam-Webster is wishy-washy about the truth and gives a lameI guess you just can't trust dictionaries these days.
My dead tree version of Webster's Unabridged jives with the American Heritage so I'm blaming that ***** Merriam for ruining it in the online edition.
Edited, May 29th 2008 6:03pm by Jophiel
American Heritage wrote:
lie2 (lī) pronunciation
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
...but Merriam-Webster is wishy-washy about the truth and gives a lame
M-W wrote:
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
My dead tree version of Webster's Unabridged jives with the American Heritage so I'm blaming that ***** Merriam for ruining it in the online edition.
Edited, May 29th 2008 6:03pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
"C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment" --Jophiel
C.T. Payne is not C.W. Payne. Different person it seems.
Totem
C.T. Payne is not C.W. Payne. Different person it seems.
Totem
Does it not also say
2. To convey a false image or impression?
No intent implied there....
2. To convey a false image or impression?
No intent implied there....
The other issue is that a Harvard educated man, ostensibly smarter than your average Bush, shouldn't be making such elementary mistakes. Especially in a presidential campaign situation. Many of you'd be excoriating dubya for making such a claim without fact checking first.
Totem
Totem
Speaking of smarts, it would seem Barry is attempting to use a previously failed foreign policy where it concerns Iran. He claims he'd use direct presidential discussions with foreign leaders and talk them into submission. By way of intentive, he'd offer such delicious treats as entry into the World Trade organization. The only problem is Bush already tried that recently and was rejected because Abjinadadithemuzzie thinks the WTO is a Zionist creation designed to take over the world.
Hmmmm. Kinda looking naive there, Obama. He needs to keep up with current events methinks.
Cite inc.
Totem
Hmmmm. Kinda looking naive there, Obama. He needs to keep up with current events methinks.
Cite inc.
Totem
Recent Visitors: 348
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (348)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC