Obama defends Rev. Wright as 'supremely gifted preacher,'

[T. A. Gardner]

according to Obama that is "taking out of context" what Wright said.
Obama tells the big lie because his minions believe his every word unquestionably

Sort of like Trump's minions are accused of hum...?

[Grokmaster]

I don't know what he said about them.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS...YOU MUST BE OVERJOYED.

[anatta]

Sort of like Trump's minions are accused of hum...?

Left uses a lot of projection. it throws the right off balance and distracts

[AProudLefty]

IGNORANCE IS BLISS...YOU MUST BE OVERJOYED.

I guess I am overjoyed since you haven't provided a single example.

[T. A. Gardner]

Left uses a lot of projection. it throws the right off balance and distracts

That's why you have to learn to recognize it in the two primary forms it takes:

Changing the subject and the ad hominem.

Changing the subject is the more subtle. It comes in various forms like the tu quoque sometimes called "Whataboutism." The object of this is to make their argument a moving target you can't pin down if you let them do it. Instead of answering your position directly they move on to a related but different topic. If you let them do this you end up chasing your tail uselessly trying to win a never ending race against their latest dodge.
The ad hominem is straight forward. They insult you and call you vile things. This often takes the form of something you might be inclined to respond to in denial. Typical versions have you being called racist, Nazi, fascist, more recently Trumpist etc., hater, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. The object here is simply to distract you from continuing the original argument.

The solution to both is to calmly shut down their worthless response and then redirect the discussion back to the original topic. This will generally get you no response whatsoever. That is, when you won't fall for their silly, childish argument or insults they ignore you because they have nothing else left to respond with.

[Hawkeye10]

That's why you have to learn to recognize it in the two primary forms it takes:

Changing the subject and the ad hominem.

Changing the subject is the more subtle. It comes in various forms like the tu quoque sometimes called "Whataboutism." The object of this is to make their argument a moving target you can't pin down if you let them do it. Instead of answering your position directly they move on to a related but different topic. If you let them do this you end up chasing your tail uselessly trying to win a never ending race against their latest dodge.
The ad hominem is straight forward. They insult you and call you vile things. This often takes the form of something you might be inclined to respond to in denial. Typical versions have you being called racist, Nazi, fascist, more recently Trumpist etc., hater, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. The object here is simply to distract you from continuing the original argument.

The solution to both is to calmly shut down their worthless response and then redirect the discussion back to the original topic. This will generally get you no response whatsoever. That is, when you won't fall for their silly, childish argument or insults they ignore you because they have nothing else left to respond with.

ADULTING!

I am a fan.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Situational ethics.

Not true. But even if it was, that would give him far more ethics than you, Sister Stench. You daily display your delight in bearing false witness, worshiping a false idol, lying, and coveting.

You have ODS -- Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[anatta]

That's why you have to learn to recognize it in the two primary forms it takes:

Changing the subject and the ad hominem.

Changing the subject is the more subtle. It comes in various forms like the tu quoque sometimes called "Whataboutism." The object of this is to make their argument a moving target you can't pin down if you let them do it. Instead of answering your position directly they move on to a related but different topic. If you let them do this you end up chasing your tail uselessly trying to win a never ending race against their latest dodge.
The ad hominem is straight forward. They insult you and call you vile things. This often takes the form of something you might be inclined to respond to in denial. Typical versions have you being called racist, Nazi, fascist, more recently Trumpist etc., hater, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. The object here is simply to distract you from continuing the original argument.

The solution to both is to calmly shut down their worthless response and then redirect the discussion back to the original topic. This will generally get you no response whatsoever. That is, when you won't fall for their silly, childish argument or insults they ignore you because they have nothing else left to respond with.

yeppers
I do my fair share of insults -but usually its "you're an idiot" -but then deconstruct their pablum
whataboutism is more difficult,
since the natural inclination is to continue the debate - "eyes on the prize" mentality helps to keep focus

[Phantasmal]

Wow - you guys really can't let that one go....

It’s the long term damage...

[Cypress]

Former president said some of Wright's comments have been taken out of context
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oba...fends-preacher

Obama is correct.

Edited video clips of Reverend Wright were taken way out of context.

Jeremiah Wright served in the U.S. Marine Corps, then in the U.S. Navy as a corpsman. I have never seen evidence he hates America. Criticizing government policies is not treasonous, otherwise every conservative poster on this forum would have been arrested during the period January 20th 2009 to January 20th 2017.

[BartenderElite]

Trump said just yesterday that America is "like a 3rd world country."

Just for the sake of comparison.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Trump said just yesterday that America is "like a 3rd world country."

Just for the sake of comparison.

Is he taking credit for that, or blaming someone else as per usual?