Michelle Obama's Whitey Video--Does It Exist?

NotJesus said:
He's working the refs. He knows this isn't going to be the last of these rumors and he doesn't want to be constantly denying things that are ridiculous
Click to expand...
He can blast it all he wants, but at some point he has to say, "No, it's ridiculous." Otherwise someone is going to say, "Hmmm... he didn't actually deny it in so many words..." and then the thing will really never die. Even if he does eventually say it's ridiculous, people will then ask, "How come he took so long to actually deny it? What's there that we don't know about?"

You have to say "No, it's ridiculous," in completely unequivocal terms. Then go on all you want afterwards.
 
It was a lie told to create just the buzz it did; And some people will go to their graves thinking it did. And a few will even SWEAR they saw it; memory is like that.

This is JUST like the sex video of McCain with two Philippino bar girls that supposedly was from the vietnam era; It didn't exist either.
 
BenBurch said:
This is JUST like the sex video of McCain with two Philippino bar girls that supposedly was from the vietnam era; It didn't exist either.
Click to expand...

Really? then why doesn't McCain just flat out deny it? Is it because they were actually Vietnamese bar girls? ;)
 
It's sad Republicans cheer for Americans to hate other Americans.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I can understand why Republicans who truly believe that Michelle Obama said these things would want it to have been caught on tape. But to want it to be true that she said these things...Why do they want a first lady who hates America?
 
Brainster said:
A reporter asked Obama about this today and got the "non-denial denial" routine:
Click to expand...
BPSCG said:
He can blast it all he wants, but at some point he has to say, "No, it's ridiculous." Otherwise someone is going to say, "Hmmm... he didn't actually deny it in so many words..." and then the thing will really never die. Even if he does eventually say it's ridiculous, people will then ask, "How come he took so long to actually deny it? What's there that we don't know about?"

You have to say "No, it's ridiculous," in completely unequivocal terms. Then go on all you want afterwards.
Click to expand...
Calling it "dirt and lies" is a denial. He has denied it.

Your ability to not comprehend this ranks among the most awesome and stupid feats of nature. It reminds me somewhat of those bacteria that can live in boiling water, apart from being completely frickin' pointless. But how your senseless opinions can endure in the scalding heat of the facts ... well, it's remarkable. Depressing, but remarkable. It's like conservatives have a gene that makes them immune to reality.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Calling it "dirt and lies" is a denial. He has denied it.

Your ability to not comprehend this ranks among the most awesome and stupid feats of nature. It reminds me somewhat of those bacteria that can live in boiling water, apart from being completely frickin' pointless. But how your senseless opinions can endure in the scalding heat of the facts ... well, it's remarkable. Depressing, but remarkable. It's like conservatives have a gene that makes them immune to reality.
Click to expand...

Read the quote again:

“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”
Click to expand...

The witness has plainly failed to answer the question. Again, I think that the underlying story is bogus, but he did not deny it, while managing to convince those with particularly weak sentence parsing skills that he did. "There is dirt and lies" is not specific; he's making the general case. If he'd said "This is dirt and lies", then I'd grant you the point. It is a non-denial denial.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Read the quote again:



The witness has plainly failed to answer the question. Again, I think that the underlying story is bogus, but he did not deny it, while managing to convince those with particularly weak sentence parsing skills that he did. "There is dirt and lies" is not specific; he's making the general case. If he'd said "This is dirt and lies", then I'd grant you the point. It is a non-denial denial.
Click to expand...
Look, I like you personally, and you often put up almost rational arguments for the conservative cause, but at this point YOU HAVE GONE OFF YOUR FRICKIN' HEAD.

Obama describes this story as "dirt and lies", and you won't admit that he's denied the story?

C'mon.
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
He can blast it all he wants, but at some point he has to say, "No, it's ridiculous." Otherwise someone is going to say, "Hmmm... he didn't actually deny it in so many words..." and then the thing will really never die. Even if he does eventually say it's ridiculous, people will then ask, "How come he took so long to actually deny it? What's there that we don't know about?"

You have to say "No, it's ridiculous," in completely unequivocal terms. Then go on all you want afterwards.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why the Wright thing got out of control so badly and everyone thought his grandma was racist. You'd think he'd have learned to be more clear by now.

I don't really get why he's being so careful, anyway. If he thinks there's a chance a video will surface, him being accused of lying about it is going to be the least of his problems. It's suspicious, and frankly appears indecisive, not to deny it firmly in clear terms; this isn't a policy matter, it's "is your wife racist?" and that should be pretty easy to answer. Well, one would think, anyway. Leave it the genius orator to use too many words to say "no" I guess.
 
dirtywick said:
This is exactly why the Wright thing got out of control so badly and everyone thought his grandma was racist. You'd think he'd have learned to be more clear by now.

I don't really get why he's being so careful, anyway. If he thinks there's a chance a video will surface, him being accused of lying about it is going to be the least of his problems. It's suspicious, and frankly appears indecisive, not to deny it firmly in clear terms; this isn't a policy matter, it's "is your wife racist?" and that should be pretty easy to answer. Well, one would think, anyway. Leave it the genius orator to use too many words to say "no" I guess.
Click to expand...

What part of "dirt and lies" was unclear to you? I can help you learn those words if you like; I used to teach immigrants to read english.
 
BenBurch said:
What part of "dirt and lies" was unclear to you? I can help you learn those words if you like; I used to teach immigrants to read english.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about me, BenBurch.

True or false: If Obama has said "no" this topic would not exist.
 
BenBurch said:
False. It would exist because it is in some people's political interest to push this story even though its a freaking lie. "Swiftboating"
Click to expand...

Alright, but they'd have less ammo.

In any case, the point is there's times when you should be absolutely clear. He should do that more often, especially with dumb distractions like this, or they grow into something bigger.
 
Actually, I think calling it "dirt and lies" is better than a simple "no". Saying "no" is simply stating that the statement is factually incorrect.

"lies," an antonym of "truths" implies that the statement is not only untruthful but that it is intentionally so. An untruth can either be an honest mistake or an intentional lie. So "lie" is more accurate. And dirt implies that not only is the statement untrue, and but it was made for the purpose of character assassination. In other words, the people making these claims are slandering his wife. A far more serious charge than a simple "untruth".
 
gdnp said:
Actually, I think calling it "dirt and lies" is better than a simple "no". Saying "no" is simply stating that the statement is factually incorrect.

"lies," an antonym of "truths" implies that the statement is not only untruthful but that it is intentionally so. An untruth can either be an honest mistake or an intentional lie. So "lie" is more accurate. And dirt implies that not only is the statement untrue, and but it was made for the purpose of character assassination. In other words, the people making these claims are slandering his wife. A far more serious charge than a simple "untruth".
Click to expand...

Eh, they're not mutually exclusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom