Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context. I bias my context by what she said around those words, you bias it through your preconceived idea of what you think she represents...
One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically.
I said it was indirect. Bush did the exact same thing you know, to make a general statements around tolerance and violence when that Danish cartoon ruckus lit up.
You're not really basing an argument on facts from what I can see.
It's not a fact that Michelle Obama didn't feel proud of her country until 2008, it's not a fact that Obama responded to the movie by sympathizing with rioters and it's not a fact that Obama hates the Catholic church.
-spence
|
"The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context"
Before you started talking about 'context', you denied she said it.
"One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically"
One would think he would do a lot of things differently. The man made a career by voting 'present' in IL, now you're curious as to why he wasn't being specific...
"Bush did the exact same thing you know..."
Spence, you have now played every desperate card that exists. You denied that there was a statement about Islam and the violence. We showed you there was. You denied the state department said anything about 'hurt feelings', we showed you that you were wrong again. With your back against the wall, and no honest way to escape, you dredge up Bush.
Spence, I promise that it won't kill you to admit that you were wrong on the facts here. Almost everyhting you have said has been demonstrably false.