Comments on: Florida Makes It Official: No Do-Over

By: peter

peter — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:09:35 +0000

Oops, Gillette

By: peter

peter — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:58:19 +0000

“conservatives gave up on Occam’s Razor sometime around November 2000?”

Was that when they elected a President who can’t distinguish between Occam’s Razor and a Gilette Blue Blade?

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:53:21 +0000

Bob: “Controversial” is the key word. He has heard plenty of what others would describe as “controversial” sermons but he had not heard about those particular “controversial” sermons. You see contridictions where you want to see them. It’s pretty simple. That’s the frustrating thing about the English language (and pretty much all languages generally), sometimes something seems to be a contradiction and yet it isn’t NECESSARILY one. It’s all about whether or not you believe you guy and you clearly don’t. Big deal, join the club. Be the chairman. Regardless, it was a good speech and to pretend it wasn’t by focusing on a supposed discrepancy is just goofy.

Are you a Christian man? You should try reading the bible with the same amount of zeal for seeking discrepancies. It ought to be a slam dunk.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:37:10 +0000

I now note that Brian Ross of ABC News seems to agree with me:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Fargus, your point:

“See, though, Bob, your argument involves making a whole bunch of assumptions. Mine doesn’t.”

That is the beauty of it. Obama parses his statement just enough to leave him an out. He is a good lawyer. Got to admire his skill.

Still a ~~lie~~ contradiction.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:38:47 +0000

Fargus, conservatives gave up on Occam’s Razor sometime around November 2000.

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:06:07 +0000

See, though, Bob, your argument involves making a whole bunch of assumptions. Mine doesn’t.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:36:40 +0000

Fargus

you seem to also acknowledge that it could very reasonably be true.

No, it cannot “reasonably” be true in my opinion. Politico may think that but I certainly don’t.

I find it not at all credible that all the comments on the videos just happen to have been made when Obama was not there.

He was there for other, unnamed, “controversial” comments. Just not the ones that are creating a problem. Other ones. (The ones without videos no doubt.)

Sure,is possible. Just like its possible that a large rabbit is going to deliver eggs this Sunday.

Ryan, I denounce the Iraq lies. I was not present for those lies but I heard about them.

Yes, the two lines are not exactly alike, they are just different enough so that fools like you can make the argument you are making. Plausible deniability is a good term for it.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:45:22 +0000

Bob, you’re wrong. And showing an inability to read in the process. “Did I hear the remarks that have started this controversy” is definitely different from “Did I ever hear anything you would consider controversial”. Different questions, different answers.

Maybe we should ask him if there’s a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Or if Iraq has WMD. Since we’re so worried about people telling lies.

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:44:02 +0000

Your interpretation is that it was a lie, but you seem to also acknowledge that it could very reasonably be true. Good to know you’re interested in accuracy.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:29:07 +0000

Another thing, Fragus.

I see Politicio agrees with me:

Contrary to his earlier suggestion, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) acknowledged in his speech Tuesday that he had heard “controversial” remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Contrary to his earlier suggestion = lie. Right?

(Yes, before you accuse me of not looking up something again, I know they try to walk it back some at the end–”not directly contradictory”.)