Hitchens Indicts Obama

[Dr Adequate]

Look up circumstantial evidence.

I have no need to. It is evidence not attested by eyewitnesses.

I feel like I've explained my position at great length by this point. If you have a specific question about a certain point in any of the things I mentioned, then please ask it.

Why do these things constitute evidence that he was lying?

You've been harping on it to no end and at least one other poster has posted specifically about it. Obama admits to hearing controversial comments but not THOSE controversial comments (though, as was shown in another thread, there's actually more controversial comments besides those that have been harped on to no end). Well, as you said, controversial comments cause controversy. Controversy has erupted over the current comments of Wright, so those comments are controversial (which, as has been pointed out, is an understatement). When Obama says he heard OTHER controversial comments, can I assume they are similar to those that have been played all over the news?

Excuse me, which of us did you say is harping on the word?

Are you sure you're talking about me this time? Go back and double check for me.

I have already done so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think you're attributing a stronger position to me than I hold.

It must have been the word "YES!" which misled me.

Think of it as in a religious debate.

There is a sort of resemblance, yes.

* sighs *

 

[Dr Adequate]

Unlike other politicians, you shouldn't form an opinion of Barack Obama based on circumstantial evidence. He's a different kind of politician.

 

[corplinx]

Should I reply to that with an equally childish response of a photo of a child flailing in water?

I am not arguing by attacking a strawman. I am just making fun of your gullibility at this point.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Should I reply to that with an equally childish response of a photo of a child flailing in water?

I can't see why you should want to, but you certainly may if you wish.

I am not arguing by attacking a strawman. I am just making fun of your gullibility at this point.

Those statements would appear to be mutually exclusive, since the gullibility in question seems to belong not so much to me as to that crude straw effigy you've made of me.

I note that I was not gullible enough to believe your assurances on this thread, which you later retracted as being "100 percent inaccurate". You, meanwhile, were gullible enough to believe what you wanted to believe based on evidence that turned out not to exist.

So, you were making fun of my "gullibility"?

Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[corplinx]

So, you were making fun of my "gullibility"?

Let me know how that works out for you.

Not too well, it seems to go over your head mostly.

 

[BPSCG]

"Controversial" is not a synonym for the word he should have used to describe Wright's language. That word is "inflammatory."

Which is, of course, the exact word that Obama used to describe his language.

Here is a link to the text of Obama's highly-publicized, much-quoted, and fawningly-admired speech. The word "controversy" appears once, and "controversial" twice. Now please identify the paragraph in which the word "inflammatory" appears.

 

[BPSCG]

Controversial means inspiring dispute, inflammatory means inspiring anger or comprable emotions. Thus, controversial comments are a kind of inflammatory comments. Of course, it's not controversial in the sense that it doesn't inspire dispute among reasonable people, and that is one usage of the word controversial. But it was not the only usage, and Obama was clearly not the word that way. Surely you would agree that Wright's rants have inspired some definite passionate disputes between various parties.

Only in the same way that September 11 truthers' rants inspire "some definite passionate disputes between various parties." By that standard, almost any statement, including "the earth is round" could be considered "controversial."

Wright's vile language is not controversial. What is controversial is Obama's reaction to it, and Obama's refusal to sever his relations with Wright years ago when he discovered he was in bed with an America-hating racist.

Obama might've been craftily softening his language by choosing words like controversial...

You got that right. He's a master speaker, and only the careful listener, one who hasn't been seduced by the beauty of his oratory (I'm not being sarcastic here - I wish I could be as compelling for two minutes of my life as he is every day) will catch the devious misuse of the language to suit his political purpose.

 

[UserGoogol]

Only in the same way that September 11 truthers' rants inspire "some definite passionate disputes between various parties." By that standard, almost any statement, including "the earth is round" could be considered "controversial."

September 11 truther rants are controversial.

You got that right. He's a master speaker, and only the careful listener, one who hasn't been seduced by the beauty of his oratory (I'm not being sarcastic here - I wish I could be as compelling for two minutes of my life as he is every day) will catch the devious misuse of the language to suit his political purpose.

No, because he's not misusing language, he's merely manipulating language. Everything (well, everything might be too strong, but everything I've examined closely, anyway) he said in the speech is either literally true or an entirely reasonable political opinion.

 

[Sefarst]

I have no need to. It is evidence not attested by eyewitnesses.

That's not the definition. Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence.

Circumstantial evidence can be quite strong and people regularly go to jail on circumstantial evidence alone. It can be attested to by witnesses or it can be any number of other things. Direct evidence, the evidence you seem to be demanding, is indeed extremely rare.

Why

do these things constitute evidence that he was lying?

They suggest he knew Wright wasn't going to go over well with the public. He intended to distance himself from Wright. He rescinded an invitation for Wright to speak at his presidential announcement saying, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html) Obama attended the church for 20 years and admits to hearing controversial and disagreeable things (though he's yet to specify what they were). His camp also stated, when the story first broke that they didn't intend to take Wright off the campaign, suggesting to me that Obama didn't have the serious problem with the statements that we have been led to believe. The firestorm of criticism that grew up around the pastor is what did it, IMO, not any great moral integrity on Obama's part.

Now Obama's actions seem to me that Obama knew Wright's comments weren't just the occasional off hand remark expected by most preachers. If they were, as Obama tried to imply in his race speech, he would have felt no need to distance himself or have any anxiety about Wright.

Excuse me, which of us did you say is harping on the word?

Dodge noted.

I have already done so.

All right then, let's see the sources this time...

ETA: I was just browsing through this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109280&page=2. It appears you have again put words into my mouth that came from someone else. So, you checked, you double checked and you still got it wrong. Do me a favor, look to the left of these words. You'll see a small picture of a desert and above that you'll see "Sefarst." I want you to make a habit of looking there before attributing quotes to me. It'll save us all a lot of headache.

It must have been the word "YES!" which misled me.

That was exasperation.

 

[T.A.M.]

Should I reply to that with an equally childish response of a photo of a child flailing in water?

I am not arguing by attacking a strawman. I am just making fun of your gullibility at this point.

You do realize you implied someone was being childish with the pic they posted, and then you OPENLY ADMIT to "making fun", something most people would also find "childish".

TAM

 

[BPSCG]

September 11 truther rants are controversial.

As I said, by that standard, almost any statement, including "the earth is round" could be considered "controversial."

Here's as complete a list of statements that I can make up that would not be controversial by your lax standards:

"I think, therefore I am."
"This too, shall pass away."

 

[corplinx]

You do realize you implied someone was being childish with the pic they posted, and then you OPENLY ADMIT to "making fun", something most people would also find "childish".

TAM

Having fun by hazing gullible people is extremely childish. I see children doing it every day.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's not the definition. Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence.

Yes, let's start there:

"If a witness testifies that the defendant was seen entering a house, then screaming was heard, then the defendant was seen leaving, carrying a bloody knife, that is circumstantial evidence; if a witness testifies that the defendant was seen actually stabbing the victim, that is direct evidence."

Circumstantial evidence can be quite strong and people regularly go to jail on circumstantial evidence alone. It can be attested to by witnesses or it can be any number of other things. Direct evidence, the evidence you seem to be demanding, is indeed extremely rare.

I did not demand direct evidence.

They suggest he knew Wright wasn't going to go over well with the public. He intended to distance himself from Wright. He rescinded an invitation for Wright to speak at his presidential announcement saying, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html) Obama attended the church for 20 years and admits to hearing controversial and disagreeable things (though he's yet to specify what they were). His camp also stated, when the story first broke that they didn't intend to take Wright off the campaign, suggesting to me that Obama didn't have the serious problem with the statements that we have been led to believe. The firestorm of criticism that grew up around the pastor is what did it, IMO, not any great moral integrity on Obama's part.

Now Obama's actions seem to me that Obama knew Wright's comments weren't just the occasional off hand remark expected by most preachers. If they were, as Obama tried to imply in his race speech, he would have felt no need to distance himself or have any anxiety about Wright.

He knew that Wright was "controversial", as he said clearly and repeatedly. Is there any evidence that he had heard him use "such inflammatory language" as "God damn America"?

Dodge noted.

What do you imagine that I'm dodging?

Uttering that phrase seems to be just a reflex action with you when you cann't think of anything else to say.

All right then, let's see the sources this time...

ETA: I was just browsing through this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109280&page=2. It appears you have again put words into my mouth that came from someone else. So, you checked, you double checked and you still got it wrong.

Bollocks. As I pointed out, I had already checked, found that it wasn't you, and ammended my post before you pointed out my error, as you can see from the time stamps. So why are you pretending that I "still got it wrong", and whining about it?

That was exasperation.

It sounded like assent. You know, what with you saying "YES!" and all.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here is a link to the text of Obama's highly-publicized, much-quoted, and fawningly-admired speech. The word "controversy" appears once, and "controversial" twice. Now please identify the paragraph in which the word "inflammatory" appears.

It appears in the interview with Olberman which has only been quoted about a dozen times on this thread.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not too well, it seems to go over your head mostly.

I can see a certain humor in you laughing at my "gullibility" just after I turned out to be completly right in doubting the claims that you believed and that turned out to be, in your words "100 percent inaccurate", but it would be humor of the unconscious variety.

I think he's having a little trouble with his old brain injury, he's going to have a go, no, no, bad luck, he's up, he doesn't know when he's beaten, this boy, he doesn't know when he's winning either. He doesn't have any sort of sensory apparatus.

 

[BPSCG]

It appears in the interview with Olberman which has only been quoted about a dozen times on this thread.

You understand, don't you, that his "speech on race," in which he repeatedly used "controversial," was getting almost nonstop airplay on all the networks until Clinton seized the spotlight with her sniper story? And that since the Olbermann interview was on MSNBC (which about six people actually watch, counting Olbermann's mother), the only play that interview was going to get was going to be on that one network?

Why do you think Obama dropped "inflammatory" from the nationally-broadcast speech in favor of "controversial"?

 

[Sefarst]

Yes, let's start there:

"If a witness testifies that the defendant was seen entering a house, then screaming was heard, then the defendant was seen leaving, carrying a bloody knife, that is circumstantial evidence; if a witness testifies that the defendant was seen actually stabbing the victim, that is direct evidence."

So then we're in agreement? I've provided you with circumstantial evidence and plenty of it.

I did not demand direct evidence.

And I've provided you with plenty of circumstantial evidence.

He knew that Wright was "controversial", as he said clearly and repeatedly. Is there any evidence that he had heard him use "such inflammatory language" as "God damn America"?

Reread this thread.

What do you imagine that I'm dodging?

Uttering that phrase seems to be just a reflex action with you when you cann't think of anything else to say.

When I take the time to lay out exactly what I mean and, rather than addressing those points, you merely bold words in it to try and make a vague semantic point, that's dodging.

Bollocks. As I pointed out, I had already checked, found that it wasn't you, and ammended my post before you pointed out my error, as you can see from the time stamps. So why are you pretending that I "still got it wrong", and whining about it?

Apology accepted then.

It sounded like assent. You know, what with you saying "YES!" and all.

It was assent, assent that there is evidence which I provided at length. I wrote "YES!" rather than "Yes." out of exasperation.

Is this done yet? Everything you need to know has all ready been laid out and your responses have become little more than sarcastic one-liners, punctuated by misattributed quotes and poorly disguised dodging.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You understand, don't you, that his "speech on race," in which he repeatedly used "controversial," was getting almost nonstop airplay on all the networks until Clinton seized the spotlight with her sniper story? And that since the Olbermann interview was on MSNBC (which about six people actually watch, counting Olbermann's mother), the only play that interview was going to get was going to be on that one network?

Why do you mention it?

Why do you think Obama dropped "inflammatory" from the nationally-broadcast speech in favor of "controversial"?

* sigh *

He didn't. To Olberman, he said that he knew Wright had controversial opinions but not that he'd heard him use "inflammatory language" such as "God damn America". In his big speech, when 'fessing up, he reiterated that he had indeed heard Wright make controversial remarks both in public and in private. He used the word "controversial" exactly as he had used it before.

By "controversial opinions" and "inflammatory language" he obviously meant two different things, as can be seen by the fact that he put them in apposition, and by the fact that they do in fact mean two different things.

How hard can this be to understand? That's a rhetorical question: the antics of Cincinatus and Sefast show that this can be very very difficult to understand --- if one really puts one's mind to it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So then we're in agreement?

You appear to be hallucinating.

And I've provided you with plenty of circumstantial evidence.

But you have not yet explained why it is evidence.

Reread this thread.

So, you have nothing to add to your nonsense except a suggestion that I should read it again?

When I take the time to lay out exactly what I mean and, rather than addressing those points, you merely bold words in it to try and make a vague semantic point, that's dodging.

You had a point?

Apology accepted then.

That's slightly more graceful then whining and pretending that I "still got it wrong", I guess.

Is this done yet?

If you really have no more convincing "evidence" then that which you have laid out, then yes, stick a fork in yourself.