Also: fire is hot and water is wet. Te Junior Rove society strikes out again.
After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.
But Jopek told The Associated Press on Sunday that she’s satisfied with how Obama discussed it during last week’s presidential debate.
Jopek gave Obama the bracelet at a Green Bay rally in February. It has the name of her son, Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, and the date the 20-year-old was killed by a roadside bomb, Aug. 2, 2006. ‘All gave some — He gave all,’ it says.
…
It was an answer that Tracy Jopek said made her proud.
“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”
And yet again, the Mighty Con Blogs strike out.
These people make me sick. I can’t say that enough.
Uh, actually they didn’t “totally get it wrong.” Just because she was “satisfied” with what Obama said, still doesn’t mean he totally ignored her wishes:
She acknowledges e-mailing the campaign in February asking that Obama not mention her son in speeches or debates.
Obama’s response? “Fuck that! I have an election to win!”
http://www.nbc15.com/state/headlines/29864149.html
Right, Jay. The only thing the con bloggers got wrong is that the woman who gave Obama the bracelet doesn’t have a problem with how he brought it up in the debate. As noted in the article you linked to: “She criticized Internet reports that suggested Obama exploited her son for political purposes.”
So Jay, great Jay, they didn’t get it “totally” wrong. They just got the only point that actually mattered wrong.
And she said “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.” But Jay can’t read when a Republican is in the wrong.
I’ll just add that you’re characterization of Obama’s actions — Obama’s response? “Fuck that! I have an election to win!” — is itself the exact opposite of how the mother who gave him the bracelet feels about it.
So the mother of the soldier has no problem with Obama and actually criticized the right wing blogosphere for trying to make something of it.
Jay’s response? “Fuck that! We have an election to win!”
It doesn’t matter how she feels about it. The crux of the issue is that Obama was asked not to bring it in his speeches and debates.
And he did anyway.
Amazing how you idiots keep leaving that part out.
“It doesn’t matter how she feels about it.”
Like I said: Jay’s response? “Fuck that! We have an election to win!”
If you don’t actually care hwo the mother feels, Jay, just what principle, exactly, are you defending here?
Jay, are you even trying to maintain a semblance of logic any longer?
That desperate, huh? I don’t blame you. Your candidate’s campaign is imploding.
Did you miss this part, jay?
“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said.“I think it was an appropriate response —
Can you stop talking now?
“Did you miss this part, jay?”
No. He didn’t miss it. Jay just doesn’t care what she thinks. Why? Because it would get in the way of him accusing Obama of not caring what the mother thinks.
“It doesn’t matter how she feels about it.”
Of course not. Reality doesn’t matter as long as you can attack the Democrats.
“Jay just doesn’t care what she thinks”.
You got that 50% right, fafaroo. What I mean by that is if this mother said that it was an “INappropriate response,” you can bet that Jay would use those words against Obama.
We should also note that even in his “correction” Jay doesn’t get it totally right.
Jay wrote: “The crux of the issue is that Obama was asked not to bring it in his speeches and debates.”
In the article Oliver linked to we find this:
So she e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches.
It was her ex-husband who said that Obama was asked not to bring it to speeches:
Brian Jopek said his ex-wife asked Obama not to wear the bracelet at any further public appearances. But Obama was still apparently wearing it, he said.
“So, that’s his own choice. I mean that’s something Barack Obama, that’s a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to,” he told Moberg.
but …
So Jay, are right wing bloggers now going to champion the ex-husband or the wife? Can we expect the wingnuts to hunt down their home numbers and start calling them to “set the record straight”? I really wouldn’t put it past them.
Jay
Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“It doesn’t matter how she feels about it.”
I lol’d. You’re trying to make the point that Obama disregarded her wishes and feelings about the bracelet and in doing so, in making your point, you say proudly “It doesn’t matter how she feels about it.” That’s rich, man.
I think each politician should wear a bracelet for each soldier they deploy. A bit like Jacob Marley’s ghost. When they come home safe, bracelets come off. It would discourage sabre rattling, no? W would be able to touch the floor with his fingers by now.
Well, clearly it does, and if it was McCain instead of Obama you’d have no problem with that piece of tautology whatsoever.
Go away, learn how to argue in good faith, then come back. And then go away again.
I think the point Jay is trying to make is that Obama disregarded the mother’s wishes without knowing what her response would be. The fact that she was “ecstatic” about it after the comments were made is fortunate for Obama, but does not change the fact her original request was completely dismissed. The part that I have seen twisted is reports saying the mother asked Obama not to wear it, but according to AP she only asked that he not mention it.
Ringo, a simple question for a simple person like yourself:
Did Barack Obama go against Ms. Jopek’s wishes that he not mention the bracelet in speeches or debates, yes or no?
“Did Barack Obama go against Ms. Jopek’s wishes that he not mention the bracelet in speeches or debates, yes or no?”
Simple answer, Jay: No. She said so herself.
It doesn’t matter how she feels about it.
Conservativism in a nutshell.
“Did Barack Obama go against Ms. Jopek’s wishes that he not mention the bracelet in speeches or debates, yes or no?”
No, as you can clearly see by her quotes.
Now fuck off.
Simple answer, Jay: No. She said so herself.
She did? Where?
I’m serious. If you’re not going to debate in good faith, go away.
Jay: Did Barack Obama go against Ms. Jopek’s wishes that he not mention the bracelet in speeches or debates, yes or no?
CSS: No, as you can clearly see by her quotes.
Huh? Clearly he , but she ended up having no objection to him doing so.
Did she ask him not to mention it? Yes.
Did he mention it anyway? Yes
Did she end up having a problem with that? No.
So, yes, Obama did go against her wishes and those who say otherwise are wearing Jay-style blinders. But did she end up having an objection to it when he did? Clearly not.
SDM: “Huh? Clearly he did, but she ended up…”
Corrected
Ok, so let me get this straight; McCain brings up a bracelet of a soldier that he wears to tug at the heart strings of America and show what a patriot he is.
Hooray!!!
Obama says, yeah John I have one too, of a soldier KILLED in Iraq.
And somehow it’s a fucking tragedy..
You righties need to just give it up already. It’s embarrassing.
(Further down in the article)
…
“I think he knew my intention, he understands it was a gesture between me and Sen. Obama,” she said. “It was just little piece of peace for us. I don’t understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet.”
…
(It’s not so hard to do when you have no shame)
She did? Where?
Try in the article cited above:
“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”
FWIW, Jay’s right about Obama going against her wishes to keep quiet about the bracelet. But honestly, if she’s not going to be upset about it, if she thinks that mentioning the bracelet was appropriate, I fail to see the big deal.
In short, it would be a problem if she were angry (and she definitely would have the right to be), but she’s not… so it’s cool.
What do you think the big deal is, Jay?
Simple answer, Jay: No. She said so herself.
Correct answer: Yes, he did. But she didn’t have a problem with it.
She asked him not to mention it during debates or speeches. He did so anyway. But under condition which she ended up having no problem with.
Those who insist he did not go against her wishes are being as obtuse as Jay and insisting on a black-and-white world.
If she didn’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how it goes against her wishes.
Phrasing it a different way: if Obama had gone against her wishes, she would have had a problem with it.
Further, Tracy Jopek e-mailed the campaign through the website. She didn’t hear back. It’s not unlikely that her message just never made it all the way up the chain
If this is the most important thing that happened at the debate, your candidate sucks.
essrog: If she didn’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how it goes against her wishes.
Phrasing it a different way: if Obama had gone against her wishes, she would have had a problem with it.
Sure, let’s redefine our terms to prove our invalid point.
“Sure, let’s redefine our terms to prove our invalid point.”
I love a guy who can be in the wrong with good grace.
Sean D. Martin: Not sure how you’re reading what you quoted there. What’s invalid about it?
What seems more likely: that she had no problem with what Obama said, because it didn’t go against her wishes
or that she had no problem with what Obama said, despite it going against her wishes?
The latter seems to be your contention, and I’ve stated everything here without misrepresentation. So what’s being redefined? Wishes?
Gods, I’m starting to understand some of CSS’s frustration some time. I’m not sure how much plainer it can be stated.
She made her wishes clear.
She asked him not to mention the bracelet during debates or speeches. He did so anyway.
That after he did so she said she decided she didn’t have a problem with it doesn’t mean he didn’t act against her stated wishes. And to say “If she didn’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how it goes against her wishes.” is to say what she wanted is not what she said she wanted.
Just ADMIT I’M RIGHT, god damn you
Oh for god’s sakes people!
SHE SAID IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE AFTER MCCAIN BROUGHT IT UP FIRST!
“She did? Where?”
In the quote in the main story. Did you not read it I’ll quote it below.
“Did she ask him not to mention it? Yes.”
No. No she did not. She said don’t bring it up, which he didn’t.
McCain brought it up, he responded.
And before you attack me for splitting hairs…
“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”
“Gods, I’m starting to understand some of CSS’s frustration some time.”
And it is your fault, just like it was in the “Per 100,000″ debate and the “You can prove a negative debate.”
“I’m not sure how much plainer it can be stated.
She made her wishes clear.
She asked him not to mention the bracelet during debates or speeches. He did so anyway.”
Wrong. She said don’t bring it up, not never mention it. McCain brought it up, Obama responded. There’s a difference. Obama knew there was a difference. Tracy Jopek knows there’s a difference. Anyone who understands English knows there’s a difference.
Why can’t you two figure out there’s a difference?
First, I have a problem with your sentence, “He did so anyway”. The word “anyway” implies that Obama knowingly ignored her wishes. I’ll note that even one of your earlier comments notes that Tracy Jopek e-mailed the website, but didn’t get a reply, so again, it’s not unreasonable to believe that the message didn’t make it all the way up the organization to Obama (the part of my comment you didn’t quote).
Second, it’s too bad there’s nothing from her e-mail to quote from, but regarding her clear wishes, here’s something more from the article:
….
A few days after offering it to the Illinois Democrat, Jopek, of Merrill in north-central Wisconsin, had a change of heart. She realized it could be interpreted as a protest against the war, a statement that made her uncomfortable because other military families who suffered losses still supported the conflict.
….
So sure: “Clearly” she didn’t want the bracelet used in the context of an anti-war statement. If Obama had done so, then it would have gone against her wishes and she would have a problem. And then there would be a story.
But he didn’t use the bracelet in that context, so it didn’t go against her wishes and she had no problem.
Ok, I’ll allow that there’s a grey area, an unknown here, which is what her original e-mail said: for example, it would change matters if we know it said, “Under no circumstances …”; or, if we know it said “…don’t bring it up in debates and speeches to make an anti-war statement” or any number of degrees in between,
which is why I really have nothing further to add to this, and I am usually disinclined to split hairs this closely or comment at such length but I have to take exception to being called as “obtuse as Jay”
P.S. Relax you’ll live longer
Shorter Sean: Just ADMIT I’M RIGHT, god damn you
Agree with me or not, at least I always sign my name to every comment I make.
“Agree with me or not, at least I always sign my name to every comment I make.”
That’s it? That’s your comeback?
Several people point out that she asked he didn’t bring it up, not that he shouldn’t mention it if someone else does, which is exactly what happened.
We also point out that she was happy with his response.
But you still refuse to admit Obama did nothing wrong. In fact, it seems like you are refusing to admit you were wrong and instead want to play the name game.
This issue is so ridiculous to begin with. It’s just amazing the right-wing blogosphere goes out there and starts spreading partial information. They just conveniently leave out the part that the mother 100% FULLY supports the fact that Obama mentioned her son and the bracelet during the debate.
McCain is the one who started politicizing deceased soldiers during the debate. Is anyone going to talk about that? I think there are more substantial issues out there. This is just another attempt by the right-wingers to distract from the real issues and their own ticket self-destructing right before their eyes one month before the election. We aren’t going for the “Lipstick On A Pig” crap again. This is a non-issue.
BloggingDemocratic.blogspot.com
CSS: That’s it? That’s your comeback?
Do I have to have a “comeback”? Some of us don’t find it necessary to get validation by hurling unneccesary insults until the other side agrees to recognize our supposed superiority.
essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly. S/he acknowledges there is a gray area and that some splitting of hairs is going on depending on how one interprets the request that Obama not “mention it during debates or speeches”. Did she mean “ever” or “unless someone else mentions it first”?
You OTOH, in usual black-and-white-I’m-right-you-are-wrong-and-you-have-to-admit-it fashion, refused to acknowledge there is room for different interpretations particularly when the details of exactly what the original request was are unknown. Which is why I didn’t bother to reply.
There was no point in responding to you. And essrog made a balanced enough statemente that I didn’t see a need to post a “I get your point, fair enough, thanks for seeming to see where I’m coming from”.
“Do I have to have a ‘comeback’?”
Yes. If you are going to response, you should have a response that is worth reading. Yours was not.
“Some of us don’t find it necessary to get validation by hurling unneccesary insults until the other side agrees to recognize our supposed superiority.”
A comeback doesn’t mean an insult. It means a valid argument. You gave nothing.
“essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly.”
And you ignore it and chose to focus on a person’s name.
Tracy Jopek said Obama wasn’t supposed to bring it up.
You repeatedly said that she said he wasn’t supposed to mention it.
In the fucking quote at the top, she made it clear responding to McCain was different than bringing it up.
We’ve pointed this out, repeatedly.
You’ve ignored it, repeatedly.
“You OTOH, in usual black-and-white-I’m-right-you-are-wrong-and-you-have-to-admit-it fashion…”
That’s because I’m right, and you are wrong. Just like in the “Per 100,000″ debate, just like in the “You can prove a negative” debate, and like just as it will be in the next debate.
“There was no point in responding to you. And essrog made a balanced enough statemente that I didn’t see a need to post a ‘I get your point, fair enough, thanks for seeming to see where I’m coming from’.”
Yeah, there’s no point in you admitting you are fucking wrong, is there? Just slink away and pretend you were right the next debate.
Fucking idiot.
And you are so fucking stupid, you don’t realize it’s your fault.
And you can’t blame my attitude, but multiple people said the same.
CSS: If you are going to response, you should have a response that is worth reading. Yours was not.
Oh, dear. My response wasn’t acceptable to CSS. Let me fret about that.
CSS: A comeback doesn’t mean an insult. It means a valid argument. You gave nothing.
A clear difference in how we view these things? In my view, not everything has to be an argument.
SDM: “essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly.”
CSS: And you ignore it and chose to focus on a person’s name.
uh, did I ignore something or did I not? Nice mixing of two separate things there.
a) I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it. I thought it was a valid point and didn’t see a need to respond to it since I had no problem with what he said.
b) The post I did respond to was anonymous and directed at me. My reply that I sign all my comments was very much on point.
CSS: You repeatedly said that she said he wasn’t supposed to mention it.
In the fucking quote at the top, she made it clear responding to McCain was different than bringing it up.
Show me, exactly, where I ever said that she wasn’t OK with his having brought it up once he had done so. Was it where I said “but she ended up having no objection to him doing so”? Or “did she end up having an objection to it when he did? Clearly not.”? Or “[He spoke of it] But under condition which she ended up having no problem with.”?
.
The content of her original email was not specified, we don’t know exactly what she asked of him. All that is reported is that she asked him not to mention it on the campaign trail, not to mention it during debates or speeches. And based on that, I pointed out that when he did mention it during a debate he had gone against her wishes.
Clearly once he had she was OK with him doing so. But unless you want to invent some info which we don’t have (e.g., her request said “mention it during debates or speeches unless someone else mentions it first” I don’t see how you can say “clearly” she did not go against his wishes.
CSS: “There was no point in responding to you. And essrog made a balanced enough statemente that I didn’t see a need to post a ‘I get your point, fair enough, thanks for seeming to see where I’m coming from’.”
Yeah, there’s no point in you admitting you are fucking wrong, is there? Just slink away and pretend you were right the next debate.
Yeah, there’s no point in quoting any of the rest of what I said if it interferes with the argument you want to be able to make.
“essrog had a valid point and made it rather calmly. S/he acknowledges there is a gray area and that some splitting of hairs is going on depending on how one interprets the request that Obama not “mention it during debates or speeches”. Did she mean “ever” or “unless someone else mentions it first”?”
There is gray area, splitting of hairs, and it’s open to interpretation. And lacking any further info, under those conditions, nobody can really say who is right or wrong. But, in CSS-world someone must be right and someone must be wrong.
“A clear difference in how we view these things? In my view, not everything has to be an argument.”
Look up the word ‘argument’ in a fucking dictionary. Then register as a Republican. You are too fucking stupid to be a Democrat.
Fuck it, I know you are too fucking stupid to work a dictionary, so I’ll do it for you…
Argument – Noun – a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
Got it? Anytime there is a discussion where people given reasons for their opinions, it is an argument.
Now that you have shown you don’t know what the word means, are you going to address my point?
“I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it.”
How do you not choke on your own tongue? Are you trying to make Jay and the rest of the Republican trolls on this site look smart? That’s beyond splitting hairs, that’s fucking lying.
“Show me, exactly, where I ever said that she wasn’t OK with his having brought it up once he had done so.”
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you fucking illiterate? I think you are. That would explain so much.
I never made that claim. I said you were wrong about what she said. You’ve done it repeatedly, even after it was pointed out to you.
“But, in CSS-world someone must be right and someone must be wrong.”
That’s cause you are fucking wrong, Sean. This isn’t up for debate, this isn’t a gray zone, this isn’t open to interpretations. YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG
You repeated said that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet. From the only source we have, we know you are wrong. Yet you keep repeating it.
And that makes you a fucking liar!
This is just like the “Per 100,000″ debate and the “You can prove a negative” debate. You are clearly wrong, but you can’t admit it. You will continue to act like I’m the one with the problem, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.
CSS: Argument – Noun – a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
And, again, if you bother to widen your narrow view to look at the next bit it says “b. A quarrel; a dispute.”
Got it? Not only do I know how to use a dictionary, unlike you I understand that words can have more than one specific meaning. You used one, I intentionally responded using another. But I expect you will continue to act like I’m the one who didn’t understand the full definition of the word, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.
CSS: “I didn’t ignore his point. I just didn’t see a need to respond to it.”
…That’s beyond splitting hairs, that’s fucking lying.
First, maybe you should check your dictionary more often.
ignore – verb – refuse to acknowledge, fail to notice, give little or no attention to
None of which I did. I noticed his point, paid attention to it, considered it, determined it was valid. Letting him have the last word doesn’t mean I ignored his point.
lying – noun – the deliberate act of deviating from the truth
I didn’t ignore his point and I didn’t see a need to respond. No deviation from the truth, deliberate or otherwise. (Unless you are, once again, going to claim you know what I’m thinking better than I do.)
Second,
CSS: “Did she ask him not to mention it? Yes.”
No. No she did not. She said don’t bring it up
“Mention it” vs “bring it up”. Glad to see you don’t engange in splitting hairs or I’d have to say you’re fucking lying.
CSS: You repeated said that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet. From the only source we have, we know you are wrong. Yet you keep repeating it.
Let’s see, “from the only source we have” we get:
– “…she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.”
– “…she e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches.”
Yup, I repeated that she told Obama not to mention the bracelet which is exactly what the source we have says she said. Yet somehow you declare me wrong.
You are clearly wrong, but you can’t admit it. You will continue to act like I’m the one with the problem, and you will never learn, you will never correct this flaw in your personality.
Yeah. That’s what I thought.