Fact Check? How about BS meter check. Which just pegged with your clip.


Leaving out such important details as these printed in the NYT:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, issued a statement emphasizing that the Pentagon did not cancel Mr. Obama’s visit. “Senator Obama, in his official capacity, is always welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital. But it is not permitted to bring with him campaign staff. His team was notified of that, and they made a decision not to visit the hospital. But we were ready and willing to host him there. In fact, we had made arrangements for his campaign plane to land at Ramstein, and to take care of the campaign staff ...

Fact Check? How about BS meter check. Which just pegged with your clip.


Leaving out such important details as these printed in the NYT:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, issued a statement emphasizing that the Pentagon did not cancel Mr. Obama’s visit. “Senator Obama, in his official capacity, is always welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital. But it is not permitted to bring with him campaign staff. His team was notified of that, and they made a decision not to visit the hospital. But we were ready and willing to host him there. In fact, we had made arrangements for his campaign plane to land at Ramstein, and to take care of the campaign staff and press in a passenger terminal there, while the senator and senate staff, if he liked, went on to visit wounded warriors. They made a decision based on their own calculations not to visit. Senator Obama, like any other member of the senate, is always welcome to visit our wounded warriors or our military hospitals around the world. But they do so in their official capacity, and not as a candidate. He can come in and bring senate staffers as well, if he likes, but campaign staffers and press are not permitted to accompany him. That would be a violation of DoD directives.”

Apparently. "simple" logic is pretty much all anyone's capable of here. The NYT didn't write that clip, that's a Pentagon press release verbatim. Here's the piece -- it's from a NYT blog:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/obama-skips-visit-with-troops/

Nowhere in that piece does Obama claim his was forbidden to do anything. If you're going to offer what you think is slam-dunk proof, you might want to do something crazy like check it out yourself, before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Man, you guys are just freaking-out-desperate, aren't you? You'll notice how you never...

Apparently. "simple" logic is pretty much all anyone's capable of here. The NYT didn't write that clip, that's a Pentagon press release verbatim. Here's the piece -- it's from a NYT blog:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/obama-skips-visit-with-troops/

Nowhere in that piece does Obama claim his was forbidden to do anything. If you're going to offer what you think is slam-dunk proof, you might want to do something crazy like check it out yourself, before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Man, you guys are just freaking-out-desperate, aren't you? You'll notice how you never make a case for McCain -- you just attack Obama.

Golly, I wonder why that is? Maybe because there's nothing good to say about your candidate?

The NYT didn't write that clip, that's a Pentagon press release verbatim.

Verbatim? Let's see the link to that official 'release'.

I do see that the article in the BLOG uses quotation marks around a statement by Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. Maybe you don't understand the relevance of the quote marks, but it means that GEOFF MORRELL made a statement, NOT Obama. Mr Morrell's statement STANDS as is since no retractions ny the pentagon have been made regarding it. Or, maybe you are calling Mr.Morrell a liar now?

And again, the statement clearly SHOWS that Sentator Obama was afforded an opportunuity to visit troops WITHOUT his press corp, c[b]...

The NYT didn't write that clip, that's a Pentagon press release verbatim.

Verbatim? Let's see the link to that official 'release'.

I do see that the article in the BLOG uses quotation marks around a statement by Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. Maybe you don't understand the relevance of the quote marks, but it means that GEOFF MORRELL made a statement, NOT Obama. Mr Morrell's statement STANDS as is since no retractions ny the pentagon have been made regarding it. Or, maybe you are calling Mr.Morrell a liar now?

And again, the statement clearly SHOWS that Sentator Obama was afforded an opportunuity to visit troops WITHOUT his press corp, campaign entourage and others. He obviously chose not to.

Here's the piece -- it's from a NYT blog: ttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/obama-skips-visit-with-troops/

Yes, that's the same link I provided above. Read it again. That 'Blog' is the official blog OF the NYTimes. Notice the copyright at the bottom of the page. It's their content, lock stock and barrel. Its not Joe's blog, or yours, it's the NY Times.

Nowhere in that piece does Obama claim his was forbidden to do anything.

Obama doesn't MAKE the rules, he just has to follow them. And I quote from the article- "He can come in and bring senate staffers as well, if he likes, but campaign staffers and press are not permitted to accompany him. That would be a violation of DoD directives.”

So Obama CHOSE not to visit becuase he could not bring his cheerleading squad. If they told him he could not bring personal bodyguards that would be one thing, but this smacks of his attitude in general. Do you get it now? Obama didn't HAVE to say or accept anything, he was TOLD what he could or could not do. Again, within DOD regulations.

If you're going to offer what you think is slam-dunk proof, you might want to do something crazy like check

The Obama campaign said that he shouldn't go because the trip would be seen as political. They also said that they were only told this right before the visit was to begin. First, the Pentagon doesn't make suggestions like that. Military regulations bar political events, they don't "suggest" against them. Second, they didn't tell Obama his visiting the troops would be seen as political, they barred him from bringing his campaign advisers along, but said he could still bring any senate staff. Obama decided not to visit the troops because two people couldn't join him, like he is some king of puppet that needs his strings pulled when talking to our men and women in uniform. Third, they were noti...

The Obama campaign said that he shouldn't go because the trip would be seen as political. They also said that they were only told this right before the visit was to begin. First, the Pentagon doesn't make suggestions like that. Military regulations bar political events, they don't "suggest" against them. Second, they didn't tell Obama his visiting the troops would be seen as political, they barred him from bringing his campaign advisers along, but said he could still bring any senate staff. Obama decided not to visit the troops because two people couldn't join him, like he is some king of puppet that needs his strings pulled when talking to our men and women in uniform. Third, they were notified days in advance that the press and campaign advisers couldn't attend and the military had already made arrangements for those people.

So his decision to "respect the troops" was made at the last minute and only made because he couldn't bring along a couple of campaign advisers. I guess he didn't mind disrespecting them up to that point...

On top of that, they claimed they decided not to attend out of respect for the troops. Yet a reporter with inside information from the campaign (Andrea Mitchell) said "people in the campaign are really angry." Who were they angry at? "So the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon." If they believed the Pentagon was allowing him to go, but that he decided not to out of respect for the troops, then why are they angry? Were they angry because they weren't allowed to disrespect the troops by dragging them into the campaign? I doubt that. The only logical reason for them to be angry is because they believed it wasn't Obama's choice not to visit the troops, but the Pentagon's...

On top of that, they claimed they decided not to attend out of respect for the troops. Yet a reporter with inside information from the campaign (Andrea Mitchell) said "people in the campaign are really angry." Who were they angry at? "So the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon." If they believed the Pentagon was allowing him to go, but that he decided not to out of respect for the troops, then why are they angry? Were they angry because they weren't allowed to disrespect the troops by dragging them into the campaign? I doubt that. The only logical reason for them to be angry is because they believed it wasn't Obama's choice not to visit the troops, but the Pentagon's.

Not only were they angry at the Pentagon, but they had the old rumor mill going full speed as well. Mitchell said, "They felt they were in a no win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives, that's the scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who've had something to do with this..."

Wisco, this has to be the single, solitary, most insanity-making thing about trying to engage in conversations, there is a huge gap in actual knowledge of facts. I don't step in with an opinion unless I can back it up with legitimate peer-reviewed research or firsthand experience. If it is one thing I am, it is over-educated. over-life experienced, and over-read.

So, I want to debate someone who can at least acknowledge that research, academic science, or scholarly work, have already done studies on some of the things debated. Much of it has made many of their points moot.

Same motto I have my students learn, back it up. Back everything up. How does one judge a source? By going to the or...

Wisco, this has to be the single, solitary, most insanity-making thing about trying to engage in conversations, there is a huge gap in actual knowledge of facts. I don't step in with an opinion unless I can back it up with legitimate peer-reviewed research or firsthand experience. If it is one thing I am, it is over-educated. over-life experienced, and over-read.

So, I want to debate someone who can at least acknowledge that research, academic science, or scholarly work, have already done studies on some of the things debated. Much of it has made many of their points moot.

Same motto I have my students learn, back it up. Back everything up. How does one judge a source? By going to the original study and reading it, look it up. You can pretty much figure that most things you can imagine for research questions have been thought up by graduate students for decades. There are entire dissertations dedicated to just about any question you can think of? Want to know if 911 or the anthrax attacks caused more panic, look it up. I helped do this research, I know it is there to reference.

Couldn't we all agree to do this? Check with a peer-reviewed source to double-check any "fact" you think informs your opinion. Every one of us would learn so much.