Obama bribed Reverend Wright to shut up

dc1971 said:
Let's see... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....

12 posts and counting, WildCat.

Are you positive you don't give a damn?
Click to expand...

postcountz.jpg
 
You guys haven't taken the analogy to the length necessary. This is the full one:

Tsukasa Buddha writes in a new book that in an interview Thunder claimed to have been offered a bribe by JEROME DA GNOME on behalf of Phil Plait on orders from James Randi to stop posting. Thunder went on to say that Randi told him personally that he wanted him to be silent because he was too awesome for the forum to handle.
Click to expand...

Linky.

I could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Thunder, Thunder could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about JEROME and Randi, JEROME could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Plait, or Plait could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Randi.

The Oprah story is like seventh-hand information :p .
 
WildCat said:
Your quote doesn't say anything about misquoting. And nowhere in that article is a source named.

So "no", but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

But it does say he invented them, or else was lied to and gullibly bought into it. Do things this man says suddenly have credibility and accountability when he says it comes from a specific person?

Honestly, WildCat, I'm not the one playing here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and even if the claim itself weren't extraordinary (and it is), the fact that it comes from someone as dishonest as Klein suggests that at least some verification is warranted. It's not my job to disprove the claim, it's the job of those who advocate or defend the claim to support it.

If you think the claim has merit, explain why or, better, support it with creditable evidence.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Thunder, Thunder could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about JEROME and Randi, JEROME could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Plait, or Plait could be lying/exaggerating/mistaken about Randi.
Click to expand...

Jerome and Thunder/Parky were both stucking foopid and I wouldn't put it past either of them. :p
 
Sigh.

Looks like the nation feels compelled to out-crazy and out-stupid the 2008 election. FSM help us all.
 
Seismosaurus said:
I find it fascinating that so much of the criticism of Obama is not criticism Obama at all, but rather criticism of his friends or relatives. Or people he once knew. Or people he might possibly once have known.

My gut reaction to every instance of this is that Obama must be doing pretty well, if this is what the other side are reduced to focusing on.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I feel as well.
 
gnome said:
I disagree with the use of "Traitorous" without evidence of the standard Constitutional definition.

I do not accept "traitorous" to be opposing the leader and being incorrect or even lying.
Click to expand...

I am using it in exactly the same way that the people on the other side used it when some of us objected, here as well as in other places, to the Iraq war.

If they didn't mean it, well, they shouldn't have said it.
 
WildCat said:
Nope, I never said that.
Click to expand...
So, you were the source of the quote until you said this, right?

That's what you're saying. That until Wright denies having said it, he is the source of the quote.

Regardless, you once told me, "I like to fling my own poo at people on the street while standing on my head and reciting 'Where The Wild Things Are' in Spanish." You are the source of that quote until you deny it. And it is odd that you have yet to deny it. You must have said it.

Of course, if you ever do deny it, someone (maybe me, maybe someone else) will come up with another unsupported quote that will have you as the source, until you deny it. On and on it will go until you either spend all your time denying having said all these unsupported statements or you decide it isn't worth your time addressing every stupid thing someone decides attribute to you and, instead, get on with your life.

This is why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not person about whom the claim is made. More to the point, this is why Klein is currently the source of the quote, not Wright. If Klein had more credibility, he might be given more benefit of the doubt. As it is, it is up to Klein to provide some sort of evidence that this conversation took place.
 
leftysergeant said:
Excuse me if I throw in a

:dl:

at the thought that a liberal like Wright is going to willfully give damaging information against Obama to a piece of crap like Klein.
Click to expand...

Wright is stupid, racist and paranoid.

And he was tossed under the bus by his best friend.

He would have made the story up just for petty vengeance.
 
jj said:
I am using it in exactly the same way that the people on the other side used it when some of us objected, here as well as in other places, to the Iraq war.

If they didn't mean it, well, they shouldn't have said it.
Click to expand...

You can't beat bad arguments with more bad arguments. I disagree with this tactic.
 
Seismosaurus said:
I find it fascinating that so much of the criticism of Obama is not criticism Obama at all, but rather criticism of his friends or relatives. Or people he once knew. Or people he might possibly once have known.
Click to expand...
A man is known by the company he keeps.
 
DavidJames said:
If you're intellectually lazy, weak minded, and prefer hackneyed platitudes over honest research, then yes.
Click to expand...
It has it's place. Law enforcement certainly doesn't ignore it. If you're uncomfortable with the company and known associations, then yes, hand wave it away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom