[OOPS]Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong

yes, because what this guy's great uncle did in WWII is relevant just like Hillary claiming to be experienced because she experienced sniper fire in Bosinia. yeah, its exactly the same situation

what's funny is when some people claim they don't have a dog in the fight

 

Oh man, Rocket Rich is back. Get ready for some hearty, basso-esque threads in the D&D.

 

Have you ever considered the reasons why this might be? Perhaps the nature of what was said, why it was said, and what the error(s) are?

Or, are all factually incorrect things equal in your mind?

 

Straws. Meet grasping. Grasping. Straws. Surely you know each other by now.

 

from my limited knowledge of the subject hitlery said that she entered and it was dangerous at night or something and there were snipers there.




so here is how I break it down worst case and best case senario.

Hitlery-
Worst case : she expanded sniper danger to sniper fire to make it sound more dangerous, and changed day to night to do the same.

Best case : she is to stupid to understand what is the difference between sniper danger and sniper fire, and to remember if she could see outside or not.

Obama-
Worst case : pandering to a Jewish crowd on memorial day claiming the most infamous CC instead of a labor camp.
Best (or possibly worst case): he is to stupid to know (or care) anything about WWII, or care about what his g. uncle did. It might backfire in this case. Also I care enough about my history to request (for free) my GP's DD214 and I know basically everything there is documented about his time in the pacific.


I honestly call it a draw but the stark difference of opinion in how people treat them is hilarious.

 

i don't I am just watching the polar morals when a persons "guy" does something very similar to the other.

 

its not similar, this is an irrelevant story, it has nothing to do with obama's credentials, or experience. its not used to validate his candidacy. apples/oranges

here's the other key difference, if you want to rip obama on history, that's fine, he should do research if he's going to put this in his speech. but hillary didn't need to do research, she just flat out lied.

as far as pandering to a jewish crowd, maybe/maybe not, politicians have to get votes, at least he's not saying he will obliterate iran or promising anything. god forbid we actually remember wwii soilders liberating camps on memorial day

 

It's not like a certain Nobel Peace Prize winner wrote a very famous book about his experiences at Buchenwald. I don't see why it would be less well-known than Auschwitz

 

What's really hilarious is when people pretend they can't tell the difference between mistaking the names of two places that someone else went to and making up something that never happened to make yourself look better.

In Casey H's world, if someone told him my "My sister went to Safeway", when she really went to Whole Foods, it would be the same as if they said "I saved a kid from drowning last week." when they had not been near the water.

 

LOL!

well she could have done research on if there was actually sniper fire. I doubt at the time it was mentioned more than just in passing fromt he SS agents because security is not her job.

Also on memorial day I only honor the troops that were on our side. Not the ones that were our enemies for decades to come.

 

hahah this is the logic I am talking about

safeway is to whole foods as Anshwitz is to Ohrdruf

sniper fire is to sniper danger as saving a life is to doing nothing.

 

Well, for starters, she said she remembered having to run from the plane to avoid sniper fire. And that her welcoming ceremony was cancelled/cut short. Video shows her greeting a little girl on the tarmac - not running.

Her story was entirely made up.

You think the story would have been any less effective if he mentioned the right camp? You think suddenly people would think "oh, that's nothing" instead of "Auschwitz! Wow!"?

Of course you do. An entirely made up story designed to enhance one's credibility vs. a single word that was either a lie or a mistake that had no benefit of note. Exactly the same.

 

this is your text book arguing style, being obtuse. yes i'm sure if you were in a hellicopter you wouldn't know if you were being shot at? LOL

his uncle wasn't american?

 

Yeah it is less effective. I doubt any of them had ever heard of Ohrdruf but everyone has heard of Auschwitz

 

Ohrdruf is part of Buchenwald, which everyone has heard of. Stop strawmanning.

 

This thread is ****ing r****ded.

There, I said it. Can we stop posting in it now?

 

1. No i said she probably heard the word sniper mentioned and her gun grabbing **** tightened and made a mental note.

2. The people who were taking the camp he claimed were not.

I just don't see how you guys can call Black - White difference in these two things.

 

Really? EVERYONE?

LOL

I am being called using strawman after this gem?

I

 

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." - Hillary Clinton

If you're going to claim two situations are similar, it's generally helpful to know what the situations actually are.

 

Maybe this will help some of the Obama haters:

MISSPOKE: http://www.denverpost.com/immigration/ci_6237002

Washington - In every emphatic way, President Bush has declared repeatedly that his immigration bill does not offer amnesty. And then, on Tuesday, he said it did.

"You know, I've heard all the rhetoric - you've heard it, too - about how this is amnesty," Bush told advocates of his immigration overhaul. "Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that."

That's not what Bush meant. Saying that his bill included amnesty was the last thing he meant.

When word started to get out about the gaffe, the White House scrambled to fix it. White House press secretary Tony Snow issued an unusual statement to correct his boss.

"Earlier today, in speaking about comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush misspoke," Snow said. "Amnesty means forgiving wrongdoing without imposing punishment," Snow said. "The immigration reforms passed in 1986 granted amnesty. The legislation under consideration this year does not."


LIES: [Various Sources - "Bush Lies" is like a Google Bomb...]

"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03

“We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing.”

Reality: England, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran over these issues. Yet, despite the European Union’s urgings, the administration is steering clear of these discussions altogether. If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power.

“We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.”

Again, this is false. The six-party talks involving the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea are in suspension. Bush has rejected diplomacy in this instance, saying it would “reward bad behavior.” North Korea resumed reprocessing two years ago and most likely has built a couple nukes since.

“There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction - but no longer without attention and without consequence.”

That’s a strange thing to say when we apparently are ignoring both Iran and North Korea. It’s funny Bush was so concerned about WMDs a couple of years ago, but now most of our military is committed to the one “Axis of Evil” country without any.
[The Independent Florida Alligator, 2/4/05]

"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing." This is just false. The three major powers of the European Union—Britain, France, and Germany—are negotiating with Iran over these issues. It's uncertain whether these talks will succeed. It's absolutely certain that they won't succeed without U.S. participation. Yet, despite the EU's urgings, the Bush administration is resolutely staying away from the discussions. It wants to change the regime (see above), not deal with it, even if that means Iran ends up a nuclear power.
[Slate, 2/2/05]

"If we do nothing . . . the system is broke, bust" ("Bush repeats call on Social Security," Jan. 14).

That is a flat-out lie. The worst that will happen if we do nothing is that in 40 or 50 years, benefits may have to be reduced. If we don't want that to happen, there are adjustments in rates and caps that will take care of the problem.

The system is not going bankrupt. If Bush wants to argue for privatization, he can do that, but he can't base his argument on the impending bankruptcy of the existing system
[The Oregonian, 1/24/05]