Yet another Obamasiah lie...errr, misspeaking

**imported_elp6n** · May 28th, 2008, 10:20 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the Obama camp admitted that he DOES NOT even have an uncle.</div></div>
It was his Great Uncle, as documented in the AP pieces.

"Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton released a statement later Tuesday clarifying the remarks, saying the Illinois senator meant to refer to the Buchenwald camp, which American soldiers did liberate. Obama was also apparently referring to his great uncle."

Even I don't refer to my great uncles as "Great Uncle so and so" I just call them "Uncle".

**PVVikeFan** · May 28th, 2008, 10:32 AM

It was his Great Uncle as CORRECTED in the AP pieces.
S T R E A T C H I N G the truth seems to be the best quality Obama has.

**imported_elp6n** · May 28th, 2008, 10:34 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was his Great Uncle as CORRECTED in the AP pieces.
S T R E A T C H I N G the truth seems to be the best quality Obama has.
</div></div> You stretched the truth by saying the Obama camp "admitted there was no uncle." Big twist of words - liberty taken with semantics on your part.

The quote from his spokesman corrected that it was his great uncle - it was not stated that there was no uncle.

**CoeburnCane** · May 28th, 2008, 10:40 AM

Does this mess up in semantics that are being picked apart by anti-Obama people TRULY mean that this guy isn't qualified to run the country? This alone...does that mean he's not qualified?

Once again--stuff like this is simply fodder. It will not mean the difference at all between a vote for or against Obama come November. It's a stupid argument.

**PVVikeFan** · May 28th, 2008, 10:42 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elp6n</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was his Great Uncle as CORRECTED in the AP pieces.
S T R E A T C H I N G the truth seems to be the best quality Obama has.
</div></div> You stretched the truth by saying the Obama camp "admitted there was no uncle." Big twist of words - liberty taken with semantics on your part.

The quote from his spokesman corrected that it was his great uncle - it was not stated that there was no uncle.</div></div>

It most certainly WAS stated that there was no uncle.

**burton2019** · May 28th, 2008, 10:44 AM

Who gives a [censored] what he said?

**PVVikeFan** · May 28th, 2008, 10:45 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: burton2019</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who gives a [censored] what he said?</div></div>

Evidently a lot of people don't care.

**imported_elp6n** · May 28th, 2008, 10:45 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elp6n</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was his Great Uncle as CORRECTED in the AP pieces.
S T R E A T C H I N G the truth seems to be the best quality Obama has.
</div></div> You stretched the truth by saying the Obama camp "admitted there was no uncle." Big twist of words - liberty taken with semantics on your part.

The quote from his spokesman corrected that it was his great uncle - it was not stated that there was no uncle.</div></div>

It most certainly WAS stated that there was no uncle. </div></div>

Huff up - kick some dirt - take your ball and go home. That's what your post sounds like. "uh huh did too"
I showed you where Obama's spokesman corrected that it was a great uncle. He may not HAVE a direct uncle, but he was referring to a great uncle, not an imaginary direct uncle.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again--stuff like this is simply fodder. It will not mean the difference at all between a vote for or against Obama come November. It's a stupid argument. </div></div>
I second that.

**sup-rbeast** · May 28th, 2008, 10:55 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does this mess up in semantics that are being picked apart by anti-Obama people TRULY mean that this guy isn't qualified to run the country? This alone...does that mean he's not qualified?

Once again--stuff like this is simply fodder. It will not mean the difference at all between a vote for or against Obama come November. It's a stupid argument. </div></div>

Hell, Bush can barely read...so, it seems that stupid has become a prerequisite for the job. So, maybe Obama does have a qualification if the current president is to be the model..lol

**TheBeast** · May 28th, 2008, 10:57 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Does this mess up in semantics that are being picked apart by anti-Obama people TRULY mean that this guy isn't qualified to run the country? </div></div>

Come on man, you can't really call stating factual events between 2 completely different places and stating every detail wrong semantics. This guy has people on staff to expressly look things up and make prepared statements for him such as this. How it can be considered just a little error in semantics and not just an outright falicy is just not wanting to see the truth.

I have another question as well. What and why was it even brought up about his uncle having been there and done this anyway. How far is this guy reaching to try and make himself look better when in reality this would have no bearing at all on him or his qualifications to be president.