Yeah, like any intelligent person believes anything WND says.

Anything from World Net Daily should automatically get the Satire tag.

And they say he isn't qualified to be President.

sigdiamond2000: www.aemma.org

WTF?

GAT_00: Yeah, like any intelligent person believes anything WND says.

So that stuff he said is in the transcript?

Oh, what the fark, this goes green? This is made up partisan bullshiat.

ThatGuyGreg: sigdiamond2000: www.aemma.org

WTF?

Didn't quite understand that one either :)

GAT_00: Yeah, like any intelligent person believes anything WND says.

Link (new window)

Then watch the video.

I agree with you that WND is a cesspool of bad information, but whether Obama's people let the charge here, the News agencies, or it was just a goofy coincidence (one left it out, the others copied), the guy's point is still accurate.

Every government office and official edits their transcripts. The White House does it (not just the current administration)as well as Congress.

WND is the official website of Bizzaro-world. If they say something is an evil threat, it's a non-issue. If they are happy about it, run like hell.

Here (new window)is the entire speech. It's 26 minutes long. Would one of you unemployed Farkers watch it and let us know if he makes the remarks about the "civilian national security force".

GAT_00: Yeah, like any intelligent person believes anything WND says.

CheddarPants: Anything from World Net Daily should automatically get the Satire tag.

I know how easy and fun it is to instinctively just dismiss anything WND publishes as ridiculous, untrue, etc.--but the fact is--this is a very simple question of fact. Either Obama and his team ARE editing the dumb stuff out--or they're not. Rather than just lazily shoot the messenger--why not take a few minutes and show the world how WND's article is so off-base?

FitzShivering: ThatGuyGreg: sigdiamond2000: www.aemma.org

WTF?

Didn't quite understand that one either :)

Come on. You guys don't know about anti-liberal hindu floor hump pushups? If done right, no can defend.

BillCo: Here (new window)is the entire speech. It's 26 minutes long.

Perfect - I've got to get to the gym soon.

OMG! Hitler!

Bravado:

"I know how easy and fun it is to instinctively just dismiss anything WND publishes as ridiculous, untrue, etc.--but the fact is--this is a very simple question of fact. Either Obama and his team ARE editing the dumb stuff out--or they're not. Rather than just lazily shoot the messenger--why not take a few minutes and show the world how WND's article is so off-base?"

Because Obama's website didn't even publish the transcript of the speech.

moobies ftw

Have we reached the point where we've pointed out that McCain does plenty of scrubbing on his own?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That's creepy, that's all we farking need is more farking authoritarianism in this country.

If McCain wasn't just as bad an issue like that could get me to vote for the other candidate. Maybe I'll just stay home...

BravadoGT:

I know how easy and fun it is to instinctively just dismiss anything WND publishes as ridiculous, untrue, etc.--but the fact is--this is a very simple question of fact. Either Obama and his team ARE editing the dumb stuff out--or they're not. Rather than just lazily shoot the messenger--why not take a few minutes and show the world how WND's article is so off-base?

Why is the burden of proof always in defense of Obama?

"Prove Obama isn't like Hitler! Prove he isn't the second coming of Pol Pot! Prove any stupid bare assertion we make wrong!"

Fark that shiat.

"You're shooting the messenger! Why can't we criticize Obama!"

Jesus, give it a damn rest. I understand McCain is running, you have anything positive to say about him? Hell no. Control the debate by demanding the opposition play games. Farking retarded.

bigdavediode: Bravado:

"I know how easy and fun it is to instinctively just dismiss anything WND publishes as ridiculous, untrue, etc.--but the fact is--this is a very simple question of fact. Either Obama and his team ARE editing the dumb stuff out--or they're not. Rather than just lazily shoot the messenger--why not take a few minutes and show the world how WND's article is so off-base?"

Because Obama's website didn't even publish the transcript of the speech.

Ok. I didn't read the article until just now. So it's a few MSM sources (who are coincidentally in the tank for Obama) doing the allegedly selective editing. Still, my original point stands; it seems a relatively easy charge to substantiate or refute...

GoRedSoxGo: Have we reached the point where we've pointed out that McCain does plenty of scrubbing on his own?

Actually, I believe a registered nurse gives him his daily spongebath.

WhHeadso: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That's creepy, that's all we farking need is more farking authoritarianism in this country.

My take is that this quote was saying that soft power (i.e. peace corps, etc) is just as important as military power in protecting America, and should be funded as such. Not, as is described in the WND article, a call for some new sort of paramilitary security force.

It doesn't seem like anything to worry about. He probably just means we should have a nazi-esque secret police to take everyone's guns away and force us all into gay marriages with mexicans.

BravadoGT: it seems a relatively easy charge to substantiate or refute...

That Obama's campaign is pressuring news organizations to scrub transcripts of Obama speeches?

How would you go about refuting that?

"Here are the thousands upon thousands of recordings of every phone call every member of our campaign has had with any member of the media, their beneficiaries, or their owners."

Yeah, relatively easy.

Skleenar: My take is that this quote was saying that soft power (i.e. peace corps, etc) is just as important as military power in protecting America, and should be funded as such. Not, as is described in the WND article, a call for some new sort of paramilitary security force.

The context around that "missing" quote seems to support this.

Hmmm, yeah... Just wait until he's using "Executive Privilege" to block investigation of things he wished he hadn't done.

This is of course very sneaky. He's telling the masses one thing but he's giving his real plan his core audience, those godless anti-military communists from the home of Focus on the Family and the Air Force Academy. Very sneaky indeed. If only he had managed to see those teensy tiny TV cameras he'd have gotten away with his nefarious plan.

BravadoGT: Ok. I didn't read the article until just now. So it's a few MSM sources (who are coincidentally in the tank for Obama) doing the allegedly selective editing. Still, my original point stands; it seems a relatively easy charge to substantiate or refute...

So to sum up:

There is no official transcript, and the transcripts that exist were edited by someone who is not Obama. The headline is wrong.

Skleenar: WhHeadso: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That's creepy, that's all we farking need is more farking authoritarianism in this country.

My take is that this quote was saying that soft power (i.e. peace corps, etc) is just as important as military power in protecting America, and should be funded as such. Not, as is described in the WND article, a call for some new sort of paramilitary security force.

Channeling a Fark Independent^tm
Here come the Obamanuts to defend their messiah! Why do you have to defend everything he says?! Go back to your cult!

/is that right?

Dadburns: Hmmm, yeah... Just wait until he's using "Executive Privilege" to block investigation of things he wished he hadn't done.

No, only douchebags like yourself wait for stuff like that. We, instead, tried to find a leader who wouldn't do that:

"By continuing to act as the most secretive White House in modern history, the Bush Administration has once again placed itself above the law in order to hide its abuse of our justice system from the American people. On the first day of an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to shed sunlight on the decisions made by government and put the interests of the American people at the center of every decision that's made."

Link

Oh, and that profile pic is classic... either you are a homophobe who thinks trolling is gay or you really do like tonguing Bush's ass.

Which is it?

Oh, and I'll pre-empt your dumb attempt at rebuttal with this:

Link

PanicMan: BravadoGT: Ok. I didn't read the article until just now. So it's a few MSM sources (who are coincidentally in the tank for Obama) doing the allegedly selective editing. Still, my original point stands; it seems a relatively easy charge to substantiate or refute...

So to sum up:

There is no official transcript, and the transcripts that exist were edited by someone who is not Obama. The headline is wrong.

No, no, it's true. The Wall Street Journal is totally in the tank for Obama. You should see Dan Henniger wax rhapsodically over Obama's plan to reinstate the Death Tax, or as the WSJ calls it, the "gene lotto correction act." Or Holman Jenkin's endorsement of withdrawal from Iraq before their elections. It's almost embarrassing, I tell you.

Miles D Davis Jr.: Dadburns: Hmmm, yeah... Just wait until he's using "Executive Privilege" to block investigation of things he wished he hadn't done.

No, only douchebags like yourself wait for stuff like that. We, instead, tried to find a leader who wouldn't do that:

"By continuing to act as the most secretive White House in modern history, the Bush Administration has once again placed itself above the law in order to hide its abuse of our justice system from the American people. On the first day of an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to shed sunlight on the decisions made by government and put the interests of the American people at the center of every decision that's made."

Link

Oh, and that profile pic is classic... either you are a homophobe who thinks trolling is gay or you really do like tonguing Bush's ass.

Which is it?

Oh, and I'll pre-empt your dumb attempt at rebuttal with this:

Link


You might want to get your sarcasm meter re-calibrated. (Glad you like my pic).

Ignore is such a good feature. If only it worked so we could ignore submissions by known jerks/shills, or for sites like WND (there's really no equivalent on the left), we'd never have to look at this sort of foolishness any more.

fosborb: That Obama's campaign is pressuring news organizations to scrub transcripts of Obama speeches?

How would you go about refuting that?

I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that Obama's people were pressuring the press to edit the stories. In fact, given their predispositions--I doubt it would even be necessary....

DarnoKonrad: Why is the burden of proof always in defense of Obama?

"Prove Obama isn't like Hitler! Prove he isn't the second coming of Pol Pot! Prove any stupid bare assertion we make wrong!"

Fark that shiat.

"You're shooting the messenger! Why can't we criticize Obama!"

Jesus, give it a damn rest. I understand McCain is running, you have anything positive to say about him? Hell no. Control the debate by demanding the opposition play games. Farking retarded.

I didn't realize that the burden of proof was always "in defense of Obama." It must be tough for him to be running in such an unfriendly political climate! Someone should give him a hug...

That aside-you missed the point completely. An accusation was made by WND. The Weenerss did not address the accusation, but merely said "WND is stupid, people who read WND are stupid, you can't believe WND" etc. I then pointed out that that is about as weak a response as one could offer, especially when it should be pretty plain, after looking at the original video and the subsequent transcripts, whether the Post and the WSJ edited out some of the more questionable points Obama made.

If don't feel obliged to respond to every "any stupid bare assertion"--then don't. But if that is your contention, then demonstrate why it is, in fact, a "stupid, bare assertion." That should be easy enough to do.

Finally--you whine like a little girl.

Wooly Bully: Ignore is such a good feature. If only it worked so we could ignore submissions by known jerks/shills, or for sites like WND (there's really no equivalent on the left), we'd never have to look at this sort of foolishness any more.

Nuh-uh! KOS! OLBERMANN! UMM...KOS! NEW YORK TIMES!

Zombie Reagan '08?

The part I love about this idiotic article the best?

At worst, you can (baselessly) construe that Obama said that we need a civilian national security force that's as powerful, strong, and well-funded as the military.

But WND decides ALL ON THEIR OWN that it means Obama "is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than (the combined Armed Forces)"

And they try to make it look like a sourced quote, when in reality, it's WND's founder blowing balloon-juice in his blog.

OMG OBAMA WANTS TEH GESTAPOS!!

BravadoGT: I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that Obama's people were pressuring the press to edit the stories. In fact, given their predispositions--I doubt it would even be necessary....

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal, totally predisposed to helping Obama, especially without any sort of incentive.

/My God you can't be that dumb.

You can add most of the Washington Post in with the WSJ as well, cameroncrazy1984

Cmon, is it really wrong for the candidate of change to change his speeches afterwards?

Manfred J. Hattan: PanicMan: BravadoGT: Ok. I didn't read the article until just now. So it's a few MSM sources (who are coincidentally in the tank for Obama) doing the allegedly selective editing. Still, my original point stands; it seems a relatively easy charge to substantiate or refute...

So to sum up:

There is no official transcript, and the transcripts that exist were edited by someone who is not Obama. The headline is wrong.

No, no, it's true. The Wall Street Journal is totally in the tank for Obama. You should see Dan Henniger wax rhapsodically over Obama's plan to reinstate the Death Tax, or as the WSJ calls it, the "gene lotto correction act." Or Holman Jenkin's endorsement of withdrawal from Iraq before their elections. It's almost embarrassing, I tell you.

This... and those are two of their more reasonable columnists. Ask someone like Kimberley Strassel or Bret Stephens what they think about Obama sometime and you'll see Coulteresque frothing at the mouth.

(Although, to be fair to the WSJ, in the Murdoch era they've actually added a token opposition voice in Thomas Frank, which is something they hadn't had for as long as I've been a subscriber. That has to be seen as a positive development.)

BravadoGT: So it's a few MSM sources (who are coincidentally in the tank for Obama) doing the allegedly selective editing.

It's sickening, isn't it? I was just telling my wife the other day that I'm considering cancelling my subscription to WSJ because of their cultish coverage of their messiah, Barack Obama. And I'm farking sick of James Taranto shilling for Obama in his web column every day. I'm actually in the process of sending an angry e-mail to the WSJ editorial board, which I plan on titling "YOU JUST LOST A CUSTOMER".

meanyogurt: Cmon, is it really wrong for the candidate of change to change his speeches afterwards?

Tell you what, you show us where Obama did the changes and we'll give you a cookie. Okay?

Needs more floor humper:

Miles D Davis Jr.? Still here? Anything else you'd like to say?

cameroncrazy1984: BravadoGT: I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that Obama's people were pressuring the press to edit the stories. In fact, given their predispositions--I doubt it would even be necessary....

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal, totally predisposed to helping Obama, especially without any sort of incentive.

/My God you can't be that dumb.



Oh, yes indeed he CAN be.

/Don't actually think he's dumb
//He's just a rabble-rousing asshat

Sig and Onanist, thanks for the floor humping guy pics.. A WND thread just wouldn't be the same without them.