Real Americans don't surrender. But John McCain did. John McCain the coward gave up fighting and gave away secrets to Communists while a prisoner.

Real American warriors don't become prisoners, they fight to the death.

But when you're the nepotistic, drunk product of an admiral, you get special treatment.

Will John McCain leave America like he left his first wife who stood by him when the coward should have fought to the death?

Or is John McCain the next embodiment of a President with Alhemizers, which Republicans love. The coward McCain can't even remember that Al Qaeda is not being trained by Iran, but he wants to bomb them.

Of course he wants to bomb Iran... He's trying to overcompensate for his cowardly deed of surrender during Vietnam.

pacified: Real Americans don't surrender. But John McCain did. John McCain the coward gave up fighting and gave away secrets to Communists while a prisoner.

Real American warriors don't become prisoners, they fight to the death.

But when you're the nepotistic, drunk product of an admiral, you get special treatment.

Will John McCain leave America like he left his first wife who stood by him when the coward should have fought to the death?

Or is John McCain the next embodiment of a President with Alhemizers, which Republicans love. The coward McCain can't even remember that Al Qaeda is not being trained by Iran, but he wants to bomb them.

Of course he wants to bomb Iran... He's trying to overcompensate for his cowardly deed of surrender during Vietnam.

Hi, will you be spamming this in all the threads today?

pacified: He's trying to overcompensate for his cowardly deed of surrender during Vietnam.

Getting shot out of the sky is not exactly surrendering.

Hey, hey barjockey, can I tell pacified: to shut up, or would that be too harsh?

JimStarkBand: An_Innocent_Primate: Perhaps you should make better choices as to those with whom you associate.

HA!!!

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

I agree. I don't normally laugh out loud to things on the internet, but holy crap if I didn't just then.

I disagree with Wright, and I think Obama's speech wasn't that great yesterday... but DAMN, this Hillaryis44 thing is retarded.

Crunch61: I'd still like to see a response to this... HappyDaddy is free to answer as well.

cameroncrazy1984: barjockey: I was referring to their calling his comments hypocritical when he said he never heard Wright rail, and then later he said he did.

I'm sure you can provide us with direct quotes from Obama saying he never heard Wright rail?

We apparently ask too much.

GAT_00: GAT_00: Yeah, this will turn out well. How about she resigns for Bill screwing Monica? It makes as much sense as this shiat.

/I made that full of fail

Actually your first version was a more accurate analogy to what's going on here.

Let me regurgitate this point so that it might once again fall on deaf ears.

I'm not running for president. You're not running for president. Those who you and I choose to associate with is of no significance.

Obama is not a victim of his associations. They were a non-issue until he made the personal choice to run for president. For him to become president, he needs our vote. It would be more responsible to cast said vote in an educated manner. That said, every aspect of his life suddenly becomes in play - just like every single presidential nominee before him.

barjockey: Obama is not a victim of his associations. They were a non-issue until he made the personal choice to run for president. For him to become president, he needs our vote. It would be more responsible to cast said vote in an educated manner. That said, every aspect of his life suddenly becomes in play - just like every single presidential nominee before him.

And that is why we have so many canned and insincere lacquered mannequins running around posing as 'candidates'.

Screw that.

I prefer Obama, warts and all.

barjockey: Obama is not a victim of his associations. They were a non-issue until he made the personal choice to run for president. For him to become president, he needs our vote. It would be more responsible to cast said vote in an educated manner. That said, every aspect of his life suddenly becomes in play - just like every single presidential nominee before him.

That doesn't clarify whether or not you think it SHOULD.

Does his whole life come into play? Yes. Should it, and is it being questioned fairly? Is the Hillary is 44 site accurate in that he is a liar and a hypocrite, or are they merely shilling for their side? And it's the internet; every argument falls on deaf ears. But they aren't ALL deaf. I wouldn't keep talking if I didn't think someone was listening. I'd walk my damn dog.

God my dog has a huge head.

Crunch61: Crunch61: I'd still like to see a response to this... HappyDaddy is free to answer as well.

cameroncrazy1984: barjockey: I was referring to their calling his comments hypocritical when he said he never heard Wright rail, and then later he said he did.

I'm sure you can provide us with direct quotes from Obama saying he never heard Wright rail?

We apparently ask too much.

GARRETT: Sir, would you have - would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?

OBAMA: You know, I guess -

and...

OBAMA: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

barjockey: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Which statements was he talking about?

There is a difference between claiming that he never heard "those" statements and he never heard "any" statements.

I also notice you did not quote the entire exchange.

This is a disingenuous response.

JimStarkBand: For the record, it's not as funny the 2nd time.

For the record, that's Erasmus.

JimStarkBand: barjockey: Obama is not a victim of his associations. They were a non-issue until he made the personal choice to run for president. For him to become president, he needs our vote. It would be more responsible to cast said vote in an educated manner. That said, every aspect of his life suddenly becomes in play - just like every single presidential nominee before him.

That doesn't clarify whether or not you think it SHOULD.

Does his whole life come into play? Yes. Should it, and is it being questioned fairly? Is the Hillary is 44 site accurate in that he is a liar and a hypocrite, or are they merely shilling for their side? And it's the internet; every argument falls on deaf ears. But they aren't ALL deaf. I wouldn't keep talking if I didn't think someone was listening. I'd walk my damn dog.

God my dog has a huge head.

Sure they're shilling for their side, and their being overly hormonally medicated and biatchy about it. But there are some points raised that drew my attention amidst the whiny drivel.

barjockey: Crunch61: Crunch61: I'd still like to see a response to this... HappyDaddy is free to answer as well.

cameroncrazy1984: barjockey: I was referring to their calling his comments hypocritical when he said he never heard Wright rail, and then later he said he did.

I'm sure you can provide us with direct quotes from Obama saying he never heard Wright rail?

We apparently ask too much.

GARRETT: Sir, would you have - would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?

OBAMA: You know, I guess -

and...

OBAMA: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Can you imagine a world in which he wasn't present at the youtube sermons? Because for at least one of them, he wasn't in the state.
You're mixing two different things to come to your own pre-ordained conclusion.
The best example so far is with Catholics who are pro choice (or even pro birth control).
Perhaps your experience is different. Do you follow everything that is said by your particular brach of worship?

Skleenar: This is a disingenuous response.

And you're bickering. Shut it.

Obama never heard Wright say those things from the pulpit. He WAS aware, however, of Wrights views and opinions. He wasn't, however, looking to Wright for political guidance, but instead for spiritual guidance.

All of this can be agreed upon.

/however
//however however

barjockey: Sure they're shilling for their side, and their being overly hormonally medicated and biatchy about it. But there are some points raised that drew my attention amidst the whiny drivel.

Like? I know I know... but clarify for me, if you could.

Skleenar: barjockey: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Which statements was he talking about?

There is a difference between claiming that he never heard "those" statements and he never heard "any" statements.

I also notice you did not quote the entire exchange.

This is a disingenuous response.

This was a direct response to the "God damn America" comment - it's right there in TFA.

Somehow I think I could play audio of Obama saying that his favorite hobby is raping children and eating babies and you would call that a disingenous response.

towatchoverme: JimStarkBand: For the record, it's not as funny the 2nd time.

For the record, that's Erasmus.

For the record, that doesn't matter. IT was the same joke, told twice. You were 2nd. Not as funny.

Maybe if you used a picture of Jesus, I would have laughed.

seventypercent: barjockey: GARRETT: Sir, would you have - would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?

OBAMA: You know, I guess -

and...

OBAMA: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

This may quite possibly be the most fraudulent editing job I've ever seen on Fark.

Well let me copy and paste the entire content of the article so you don't have to click on it and read it yourself.

JimStarkBand: barjockey: Sure they're shilling for their side, and their being overly hormonally medicated and biatchy about it. But there are some points raised that drew my attention amidst the whiny drivel.

Like? I know I know... but clarify for me, if you could.

You know what? You're right. I misspoke. Hillary44 or whatever brought nothing to the table for me. The only thing that I got out of this were the quotes from Obama himself.

barjockey: This was a direct response to the "God damn America" comment - it's right there in TFA.

Somehow I think I could play audio of Obama saying that his favorite hobby is raping children and eating babies and you would call that a disingenous response.

Are you saying that Obama was lying?

Your original claim was that Obama claimed he 'never heard Wright rail', but now you have changed it to 'he never heard Wright say God Damn America'.

So, prove that Obama was lying on that last issue and you will have made a point, if not the original one you attempted to make.

JimStarkBand: For the record, that doesn't matter. IT was the same joke, told twice. You were 2nd. Not as funny.

I guess that's another misunderstanding on your part then. I wasn't trying to be funny. I was trying to make a better analogy.

Galileo was brought before the church on charges of heresy. He recanted.

Erasmus stayed within a church he knew to be imperfect and tried to reform it. He didn't back down, even when Luther was barking at him. And to this day, he's known for his eloquence and the sophistication, logic and passion of his arguments.

I think he's a far better analogy for Obama.

/Was also testing the "nothing is obscure on fark" cliche
//Guess i could have added "obscure?"

barjockey: Well let me copy and paste the entire content of the article so you don't have to click on it and read it yourself.

I suggest you read the first of my many posts in this thread. It might help you understand why I feel you are being dishonest here.

barjockey: The only thing that I got out of this were the quotes from Obama himself.

Ok. Now, my point of contention is that they were manipulating his comments in an attempt to make them sound like lies, when in reality they might not be.

This is the FIRST real thing anyone seems to have had on Obama that could be attacked. So people are feasting on it, whether it's solid or not. For the record, I think attacking McCain for his tongue-blunder about Iran/Al Qaeda yesterday is dumb too, as is any attack on Hillary's 'lust for power'. I have seen most of those quotes in their entirety, and don't feel Hf44 displayed them accurately.

Now, if someone wants to attack Obama over the fact that his campaign is refusing to use union labor at their stops despite their promise to do so in order to avoid a picket line... that might be attack worthy. IATSE is a wee bit miffed at him over that.

seventypercent: barjockey: GARRETT: Sir, would you have - would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?

OBAMA: You know, I guess -

and...

OBAMA: I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

This may quite possibly be the most fraudulent editing job I've ever seen on Fark.

You aren't familiar with Bevets, I take it?

towatchoverme: I think he's a far better analogy for Obama.

/Was also testing the "nothing is obscure on fark" cliche
//Guess i could have added "obscure?"

.......

Yeah, obscure might have helped. Maybe mentioning that you thought the Erasmus was a better example. As opposed to just changing a picture.

And then posting.

And then wondering while people don't see your subtle nuance.

If it was a simple 'misunderstanding' on my part, it was a direct result of the vague, ineloquent post being misunderstood.

But, glad you weren't trying to be funny.

seventypercent: To be fair, he WAS directly quoting the article. The stuff you are reading isn't in the article. At least not clearly.

The fact that they are bolding only portions of quotes doesn't help either. But it's a stupid blog. What should anyone expect?

Skleenar: Funny. It's as if the author of this article didn't read the quote they used at the very beginning:


If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit...If I thought that that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn't feel comfortable there.


90 seconds of uncomfortable language over 20 years =/= "repeated tenor"

Yes - and then he goes on to contradict this very statement!

COOPER: I mean, I think I read in your books that you listened to tapes of Reverend Wright when you were at Harvard Law School.

OBAMA: I did.

COOPER: So, you had no idea?

OBAMA: I understand.

I did not. Well, I want to be clear that, when I ran for president, some of these statements started surfacing.


So which is it? Did they start surfacing after he started running for president, or was he aware of them before and they just weren't "repeated" enough to draw any ire?

THIS

OBAMA: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?" Obama said. "Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

OR

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

THIS?

barjockey: Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Thanks for the reply... But let's take a look at the full context:

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.

barjockey: So which is it? Did they start surfacing after he started running for president, or was he aware of them before and they just weren't "repeated" enough to draw any ire?

That's called a "false dichotomy" and you're an idiot.

Crunch61: He's somebody who helped me find Christ.

I thought Christian presidents were a bad thing - a very bad thing. Can someone please explain this to me.

/head asplode

barjockey: THIS

OBAMA: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?" Obama said. "Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

OR

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

THIS?

Both.

Those are not contradictory statements.

Read it again if you are not sure.

cameroncrazy1984: barjockey: So which is it? Did they start surfacing after he started running for president, or was he aware of them before and they just weren't "repeated" enough to draw any ire?

That's called a "false dichotomy" and you're an idiot.

OBAMA: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?" Obama said. "Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."



"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

That is not a false dichotomy. That is a con-tra-dic-shun.

barjockey:
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

That is not a false dichotomy. That is a con-tra-dic-shun.

Work on your reading skills

barjockey: That is not a false dichotomy. That is a con-tra-dic-shun.

okay, you have to be either really bad at English or just plain stupid. Remarks that are (or could be) controversial BUT NOT the ones which are the source of THIS controversy. You're an idiot!

So he's heard tons of controversial statements that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric...but somehow just not "those" statements.

Okay.

DAMN! I'm late for an appointment! I've got a hot lead on some primo beachfront property in Topeka biatches...

barjockey: Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

That is not a false dichotomy. That is a con-tra-dic-shun.

.... it's not a contradiction. one refers to general controversial remarks, the other refers to his specific comments damning America. That is NOT the only controversial remark he uttered, and it is OTHER controversial remarks that are being referred to in the first quote.

Obama does make that point clear.

barjockey: Crunch61: He's somebody who helped me find Christ.

I thought Christian presidents were a bad thing - a very bad thing. Can someone please explain this to me.

/head asplode

I thought that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was a Muslim - a very bad thing.
Can someone please explain this to me?

/head double-asplode

barjockey: So he's heard tons of controversial statements that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric...but somehow just not "those" statements.

Okay.

DAMN! I'm late for an appointment! I've got a hot lead on some primo beachfront property in Topeka biatches be at the gym in 26 minutes...

There ya go.

barjockey: So he's heard tons of controversial statements that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric...but somehow just not "those" statements.

Okay.

DAMN! I'm late for an appointment! I've got a hot lead on some primo beachfront property in Topeka biatches...

On Perry lake or Clinton lake?

UnkleKrakker: barjockey: So he's heard tons of controversial statements that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric...but somehow just not "those" statements.

Okay.

DAMN! I'm late for an appointment! I've got a hot lead on some primo beachfront property in Topeka biatches...

On Perry lake or Clinton lake?

On the Sea of Tranquility

barjockey: So he's heard tons of controversial statements that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric...but somehow just not "those" statements.



No... 'tons' could be wrong, 'that could be considered divisive American-hating rhetoric' could be wrong.

Maybe he was talking stock options. Maybe he was making points about stem cell research or abortion or divorce or responsibility division in a marriage... maybe he was speaking out about his hatred for Bush policies, or the enactment and subsequent abuse of the Patriot Act...

Could have been any number of things. They didn't have to be divisive American-hating rhetoric.

Oh man, that was some primo barjockey ownage right there. Nice work.