[OOPS]Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong

That's funny.

 

This man:



Wrote this book about Buchenwald:



So yes, it's a camp with a very large amount of infamy.

 

yeah I googled it after you expanded on it earlier.

I still think they are both just pandering to gain some edge and changed a story. The difference seems not so much to have such a difference response from the posters here.

 

thats great, I can promise you it is not even close to anschwitz in fame.

plus Ohrdruf is listed as one of 174 sub-camps and was labor camp. Seriously you cannot compare to the mass killing of anschwitz

 

Fact: In 2002, Obama said his Grandfather signed up for the war "the day perl harbor was bombed.
[rquoter]My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.[/rquoter]

Truth: Obama's Grandfather signed up in June, 1942. The Russians, not Patton's Army, liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Fact: In 2008, Obama changed the story to his "Uncle"

Truth: It was his great uncle. Or was it?

Fact: Obama said Auschwitz

Truth: It was Buchenwald, if it happened at all, and Buchenwald was not a Jewish extermination site, camp, but a slave labor camp.

Clearly, he will say anything, and his supporters will excuse anything. Had Hillary, much less Bush, engaged in this type of fabrication, the left would be crucifying them for it.

 

Translation:

I really didn't know what I was talking about, but now that I been corrected, I still can't admit I'm wrong, so I'm going to continue to pretend there is some kind of equivalence.

 

good to know you'll be voting on issues

 

yeah, that is what has been made "clear" by this.

I like how Hillary isn't the left anymore.

 

I think you picked the wrong language in the google translator.

try again.

 

it's because of ignorant people like the OP and this "basso" that the presidential elections turned into an episode of survivor instead of being an intellectually advanced exchange between people who are concerned about this country. This country is going through one of the worst times in its history. it has completely lost the respect of the rest of the world, the once "most powerful economy in the history of human civilization" is struggling bad, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the U.S dollar, thousands of soldiers are dead and more are dying everyday for a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place, and yet we are arguing why a candidate "misspoke" and confused the names of the 2 camps that his "grandfather" or "super great uncle" fought in. why is this even relevant? if you don't like the man's ideology, criticize it. Say, for example, that his gun control policy isn't fair. say that his stance on illegal immigration isn't strong enough, say that you don't like his stance on abortion etc... don't talk about "misspeaking" for god's sake! as a matter of fact, the whole science of "politics" is comprised of a bunch of lies and overblown facts.

Now, why would I care about Obama's grandfather or Clinton's landing or McCain's birthplace? all I care about is what they're gonna do for this country. Now, when McCain repeatedly and firmly says "we have info that Iran is training Alqaida", that's something we can debate, because it suggests that he lacks the necessary knowledge of global affairs and foreign policy. When he says that he "needs to be educated on the economy", that's another thing to pay attention to because the economy is pretty much the leading issue in the political stage right now..

please, I'm not suggesting that everyone should agree with me and vote for my candidate, I would just like to hear an EDUCATED discourse on the ISSUES, not on who misspeaks and who doesn't..

and as Bill Maher once suggested: heck, if we judged candidates on who misspeaks the least, how did we end up with Bush and "food on our family"?

 

I think they are all terrible on gun control, illegals and since i have already been born and I don't have a vagina I don't care about abortion.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I do think these instances of honesty or dishonesty are relevant - they speak to the character of the potential President. A President who has less interest in the truth or more interest in acquiring power - two things we've seen in Bush - are more likely to make bad decisions when President. Character and ethics is what will guide Presidents on the things that inevitably come up after one gets elected - seeing how they act now gives us some limited insight into how they will govern and how they will make decisions.

I'd argue that Bush's actual policy positions are not all that different from McCain - but I think their governing styles would be very different. And I think many of the problems from this Bush administration are from style, not policy positions.

 

you would have a point, if the democrats had not spent the past 8 years doing exactly the same thing to bush. you reap what you sow.

 

Except that most of the Bush criticisms were related to actual policy issues.

 

a black man who admitted cocaine use is likely to be president? who's reaping what they sowed LOLOLOLOLOL

 

Your anecdotal ignorance of Buchenwald is not evidence for it not being famous, especially considering that one of the most famous (if not the most famous) WWII novels was written about it.

How dare you minimize the brutality of the labor camps?

 

Over 1 million people killed.

yeah I am terrible.


also one of 174 camps does not equal Buchenwald.

Frankly if my relative helped to stop one person from being in prison in a camp that is even rumored to exist I would have been proud enough to know the story. I guess that is just me. Like I said before I have the DD214's of my dad (Viet) and Granddad(WWII pacific)

 

geez this gloating thing is so overdone.

i mean if he does win is that really how you want to feel? Not proud of how far USa came in 40 years but just gloating that people are upset?

 

yes, i'm gloating, or i could have just been responding to the ignorant "reap what you sow" comment and pointing out its irony

 

btw, please point out where i said pointing out obama's past drug use is racist. or like in the steroid thread and your obssession with samfisher, you're factually wrong