The President Speaks Of Hope For The Future

[Pogo]

We knew all about it

So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.

So ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?

Not at all. You simply have no leg to stand on in judging those of us who were fooled, because if you had not been informed beforehand you likely would have made the same assumptions.

Speculation fallacy, and way off the mark anyway. See post 284.

Sure, maybe you would have googled it, or maybe you just never would've checked the thread at all. Regardless, you were informed beforehand. Can't really take you seriously because of that.

So you're saying "people who are informed are not to be taken seriously".

That tells me a lot. Especially about what your news sources must be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.

So ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?

Not at all. You simply have no leg to stand on in judging those of us who were fooled, because if you had not been informed beforehand you likely would have made the same assumptions.

Speculation fallacy, and way off the mark anyway. See post 284.

Sure, maybe you would have googled it, or maybe you just never would've checked the thread at all. Regardless, you were informed beforehand. Can't really take you seriously because of that.

So you're saying "people who are informed are not to be taken seriously".

That tells me a lot. Especially about what your news sources must be.

More dishonesty and taking quotes out of context.

 

[Pogo]

 

[Hossfly]

The venom and hatred of the right towards President Eisenhower in this thread is surprising

This thread all goes to show exactly how blind hate is.

No, this thread shows very little, actually. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt threads in recent memory. We have an OP, and others, pretending that people were protesting the words of a quote, rather than the person that the OP was pretending said the quote, as if context is unimportant. We have an OP who was completely unwilling to engage in any discussion with any meaningful or well thought out critique of the person he was pretending said the quote, and rather simply sat around mocking the low-hanging fruit.

The most that can be said for this thread is that those of us who were duped, and we were, should have known better and Googled the quotes.

Actually Kevin, I agree with your last sentence.
There were plenty of posters who assumed the quotes were that of Obama and then let their hate take over. Stat never implied it was Obama, people assumed the quotes were by Obama.
The act of assuming. Looking back, the behavior of those who were punked, reminds me of all those who come here everyday armed with nothing but hyper-partisan talking points and run with it over and over again. It happens often and by both sides of the aisle. I can't tell you how many times hyper-partisan talking points end up getting debunked because certain qualifiers are intentionally left out.
That's where Google (or some other search tool) comes into play. When I am here on USMB, Google comes into play constantly. Doing some research using non-partisan resources involves not much work and it sure helps avoiding punking oneself. I know I have burned myself by being lazy and assumptive. I hate it when I humiliate myself.

Except that mistakenly assuming that Obama said those things, and then pointing out that Obama doesn't actually believe them, has nothing to do with being a blind partisan. Obama's actions don't fall in line with the principles espoused in those quotes, I would say neither does Eisenhower's, but that's irrelevant, and pointing that out is simply pointing out facts. Now we pointed out those facts based on a false assumption, but they're still facts regardless.

No. Its merely your opinion that Pres. Obama does not believe the content of the quotes which you now know are actually from Pres. Eisenhower. That very sentence of yours proved the point of this experiment, namely that the hatred of Obama from the Right and their blank assumptions about him cloud their judgement even over the most innocuous of quotes. So, thanks for supporting my argument.

PS. No USMB rules were broken with the creation of the OP. I provided 2 historically correct quotes and attributed them to a POTUS. My oh my, when Righties get upset, they literally beg for the nanny state to intercede. Why, Rightwinger made a similar thread using a Reagan quote about eliminating nuclear weapons and the Right went totally apoplectic. He too broke no USMB rules. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I am impressed that you are impressed by the words of a great Republican President. For both of us know that Obamahdi damn sure doesn't live up to those sentiments. He's not very bright.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, you continually saying that people said things they didn't say is digging the hole deeper.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."


Great words, deep words. I was awed when I just read his words.


Thank you, Mr. President!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that -- in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s point number one.

Point number two, my credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

And so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity.

He also said this crap as well! The man has no credibilty whatsoever! He also said doctors make 20k 30k 40k dollars per amputation instead of doing preventative care.( by the way it's wrong they do not and by the time a patient sees the surgeon it's usually to late to save the limb) he also said doctors remove children's tonsils to make a payday instead of giving a losenge

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a question I don't expect an honest answer to: How many of the people being smug about successfully tricking people, rightwinger Pogo kiwiman127 , were privately contacted by Statistik and informed that the quotes were from Eisenhower and not Obama?

We knew all about it

So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.

No, not really

Did you bother to read the quote or did the fact that you attributed it to Obama cloud your view? It does not read like something Obama would say. I kept dropping hints that this is rightwing rhetoric but you wouldn't buy it

I am the king of getting rightwing assholes to attack a quote by one of their idols...I am not that gullible

I guess hate opens you guys up to it

Eisenhower is not one of my idols, as I said before I would argue that he doesn't believe the ideals expressed in that quote either. It's irrelevant, however. You had to be informed, and so are in no position to judge those of us who were not informed.

I was informed....didn't have to be

I have run a dozen or so of these threads and have gotten the same result. Want to hear what Reagan had to say about guns or eliminating nuclear weapons?

You guys always react the same. Put Obamas name on it and attack the message because you thought it came from Obama. I get the same responses Stat got.....Anyone who would say such a thing is a moron, hates America, Commie

Your reactions are so predictable, as is Rabbi claiming he knew all along

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you continually saying that people said things they didn't say is digging the hole deeper.

And where did I do that?

Where did anybody do that? Other than Steve McRacist's bogus sig lines I mean?

 

[rightwinger]

"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."


Great words, deep words. I was awed when I just read his words.


Thank you, Mr. President!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that -- in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s point number one.

Point number two, my credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

And so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity.

He also said this crap as well! The man has no credibilty whatsoever! He also said doctors make 20k 30k 40k dollars per amputation instead of doing preventative care.( by the way it's wrong they do not and by the time a patient sees the surgeon it's usually to late to save the limb) he also said doctors remove children's tonsils to make a payday instead of giving a losenge

Looks like someone arrived late at the tea party

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's a question I don't expect an honest answer to: How many of the people being smug about successfully tricking people, rightwinger Pogo kiwiman127 , were privately contacted by Statistik and informed that the quotes were from Eisenhower and not Obama?

We knew all about it

So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.

No, not really

Did you bother to read the quote or did the fact that you attributed it to Obama cloud your view? It does not read like something Obama would say. I kept dropping hints that this is rightwing rhetoric but you wouldn't buy it

I am the king of getting rightwing assholes to attack a quote by one of their idols...I am not that gullible

I guess hate opens you guys up to it

Eisenhower is not one of my idols, as I said before I would argue that he doesn't believe the ideals expressed in that quote either. It's irrelevant, however. You had to be informed, and so are in no position to judge those of us who were not informed.

I was informed....didn't have to be

I have run a dozen or so of these threads and have gotten the same result. Want to hear what Reagan had to say about guns or eliminating nuclear weapons?

You guys always react the same. Put Obamas name on it and attack the message because you thought it came from Obama. I get the same responses Stat got.....Anyone who would say such a thing is a moron, hates America, Commie

Your reactions are so predictable, as is Rabbi claiming he knew all along

Can you provide a quote of mine where I attacked the words in a vacuum, rather than comparing them to Obama's actual policies?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, you continually saying that people said things they didn't say is digging the hole deeper.

And where did I do that?

Where did anybody do that? Other than Steve McRacist's bogus sig lines I mean?

Sure, maybe you would have googled it, or maybe you just never would've checked the thread at all. Regardless, you were informed beforehand. Can't really take you seriously because of that.

So you're saying "people who are informed are not to be taken seriously".

That tells me a lot. Especially about what your news sources must be.

Right there. Took my words completely out of context to mean something different from what I actually said.

 

[rightwinger]

The President said.......A Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth

Go at it righties!

 

[Pogo]

So ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?

Not at all. You simply have no leg to stand on in judging those of us who were fooled, because if you had not been informed beforehand you likely would have made the same assumptions.

This place absolutely screams for cynicism and checking what's being said. That's how we busted bogus fake-news stories on "Isis beheading Christians" and "Girl suspended from school for saying 'bless you'". It's the whole reason I created this thread a while back. It's full of 'em.

The moral of the story: "do your homework". Know what you're talking about. If that lesson has impressed any of the dupees here this thread has served a productive purpose.

 

[kiwiman127]

The venom and hatred of the right towards President Eisenhower in this thread is surprising

This thread all goes to show exactly how blind hate is.

No, this thread shows very little, actually. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt threads in recent memory. We have an OP, and others, pretending that people were protesting the words of a quote, rather than the person that the OP was pretending said the quote, as if context is unimportant. We have an OP who was completely unwilling to engage in any discussion with any meaningful or well thought out critique of the person he was pretending said the quote, and rather simply sat around mocking the low-hanging fruit.

The most that can be said for this thread is that those of us who were duped, and we were, should have known better and Googled the quotes.

Actually Kevin, I agree with your last sentence.
There were plenty of posters who assumed the quotes were that of Obama and then let their hate take over. Stat never implied it was Obama, people assumed the quotes were by Obama.
The act of assuming. Looking back, the behavior of those who were punked, reminds me of all those who come here everyday armed with nothing but hyper-partisan talking points and run with it over and over again. It happens often and by both sides of the aisle. I can't tell you how many times hyper-partisan talking points end up getting debunked because certain qualifiers are intentionally left out.
That's where Google (or some other search tool) comes into play. When I am here on USMB, Google comes into play constantly. Doing some research using non-partisan resources involves not much work and it sure helps avoiding punking oneself. I know I have burned myself by being lazy and assumptive. I hate it when I humiliate myself.

Stat proved once again that it is not Obamas statements or policies that the right objects to

It is Obama who they object to

Except that I pointed out several of Obama's policies that I disagree with and that blatantly go against the quote I falsely assumed came from him. Nobody bothered to address those posts at all.

Unfortunately, Obama isn't unique at all, he's just another politicians. There aren't many politicians who walk the walk. When I moved to Minnesota there was Paul Wellstone who was pretty damn consistent as far as doing what he said he'd do. I didn't agree with him very often, but I respected him. Other than that, there probably isn't any modern politician I have respected in the last few decades..

 

[rightwinger]

This thread all goes to show exactly how blind hate is.

No, this thread shows very little, actually. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt threads in recent memory. We have an OP, and others, pretending that people were protesting the words of a quote, rather than the person that the OP was pretending said the quote, as if context is unimportant. We have an OP who was completely unwilling to engage in any discussion with any meaningful or well thought out critique of the person he was pretending said the quote, and rather simply sat around mocking the low-hanging fruit.

The most that can be said for this thread is that those of us who were duped, and we were, should have known better and Googled the quotes.

Actually Kevin, I agree with your last sentence.
There were plenty of posters who assumed the quotes were that of Obama and then let their hate take over. Stat never implied it was Obama, people assumed the quotes were by Obama.
The act of assuming. Looking back, the behavior of those who were punked, reminds me of all those who come here everyday armed with nothing but hyper-partisan talking points and run with it over and over again. It happens often and by both sides of the aisle. I can't tell you how many times hyper-partisan talking points end up getting debunked because certain qualifiers are intentionally left out.
That's where Google (or some other search tool) comes into play. When I am here on USMB, Google comes into play constantly. Doing some research using non-partisan resources involves not much work and it sure helps avoiding punking oneself. I know I have burned myself by being lazy and assumptive. I hate it when I humiliate myself.

Except that mistakenly assuming that Obama said those things, and then pointing out that Obama doesn't actually believe them, has nothing to do with being a blind partisan. Obama's actions don't fall in line with the principles espoused in those quotes, I would say neither does Eisenhower's, but that's irrelevant, and pointing that out is simply pointing out facts. Now we pointed out those facts based on a false assumption, but they're still facts regardless.

No. Its merely your opinion that Pres. Obama does not believe the content of the quotes which you now know are actually from Pres. Eisenhower. That very sentence of yours proved the point of this experiment, namely that the hatred of Obama from the Right and their blank assumptions about him cloud their judgement even over the most innocuous of quotes. So, thanks for supporting my argument.

PS. No USMB rules were broken with the creation of the OP. I provided 2 historically correct quotes and attributed them to a POTUS. My oh my, when Righties get upset, they literally beg for the nanny state to intercede. Why, Rightwinger made a similar thread using a Reagan quote about eliminating nuclear weapons and the Right went totally apoplectic. He too broke no USMB rules. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I am impressed that you are impressed by the words of a great Republican President. For both of us know that Obamahdi damn sure doesn't live up to those sentiments. He's not very bright.

Evidently, neither are you

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The President said.......A Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth

Go at it righties!

"The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States?" - H. L. Mencken

 

[rightwinger]

The President said.......A Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth

Go at it righties!

"The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States?" - H. L. Mencken

I thought Obama said that
You better check before you support it

By the way...Mencken is an asshole
The south was anything but "of the people, for the people and by the people"

 

[Dot Com]

No. Its merely your opinion that Pres. Obama does not believe the content of the quotes which you now know are actually from Pres. Eisenhower. That very sentence of yours proved the point of this experiment, namely that the hatred of Obama from the Right and their blank assumptions about him cloud their judgement even over the most innocuous of quotes. So, thanks for supporting my argument.

PS. No USMB rules were broken with the creation of the OP. I provided 2 historically correct quotes and attributed them to a POTUS. My oh my, when Righties get upset, they literally beg for the nanny state to intercede. Why, Rightwinger made a similar thread using a Reagan quote about eliminating nuclear weapons and the Right went totally apoplectic. He too broke no USMB rules. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I am impressed that you are impressed by the words of a great Republican President. For both of us know that Obamahdi damn sure doesn't live up to those sentiments. He's not very bright.

Nice try at backpedaling but you failed early on Gomer

why is there so much fact-averse rw hate .

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?

Not at all. You simply have no leg to stand on in judging those of us who were fooled, because if you had not been informed beforehand you likely would have made the same assumptions.

This place absolutely screams for cynicism and checking what's being said. That's how we busted bogus fake-news stories on "Isis beheading Christians" and "Girl suspended from school for saying 'bless you'". It's the whole reason I created this thread a while back. It's full of 'em.

The moral of the story: "do your homework". Know what you're talking about. If that lesson has impressed any of the dupees here this thread has served a productive purpose.

Again, there's no question that I, among others, should have googled the quotes. Fully and freely admitted. My bad. That you were in on the con, however, hardly qualifies you to judge the reaction of those who were not. That you also deny that there was any dishonesty from the OP or from those who perpetuated the duplicity is laughable, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This thread all goes to show exactly how blind hate is.

No, this thread shows very little, actually. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt threads in recent memory. We have an OP, and others, pretending that people were protesting the words of a quote, rather than the person that the OP was pretending said the quote, as if context is unimportant. We have an OP who was completely unwilling to engage in any discussion with any meaningful or well thought out critique of the person he was pretending said the quote, and rather simply sat around mocking the low-hanging fruit.

The most that can be said for this thread is that those of us who were duped, and we were, should have known better and Googled the quotes.

Actually Kevin, I agree with your last sentence.
There were plenty of posters who assumed the quotes were that of Obama and then let their hate take over. Stat never implied it was Obama, people assumed the quotes were by Obama.
The act of assuming. Looking back, the behavior of those who were punked, reminds me of all those who come here everyday armed with nothing but hyper-partisan talking points and run with it over and over again. It happens often and by both sides of the aisle. I can't tell you how many times hyper-partisan talking points end up getting debunked because certain qualifiers are intentionally left out.
That's where Google (or some other search tool) comes into play. When I am here on USMB, Google comes into play constantly. Doing some research using non-partisan resources involves not much work and it sure helps avoiding punking oneself. I know I have burned myself by being lazy and assumptive. I hate it when I humiliate myself.

Stat proved once again that it is not Obamas statements or policies that the right objects to

It is Obama who they object to

Except that I pointed out several of Obama's policies that I disagree with and that blatantly go against the quote I falsely assumed came from him. Nobody bothered to address those posts at all.

Unfortunately, Obama isn't unique at all, he's just another politicians. There aren't many politicians who walk the walk. When I moved to Minnesota there was Paul Wellstone who was pretty damn consistent as far as doing what he said he'd do. I didn't agree with him very often, but I respected him. Other than that, there probably isn't any modern politician I have respected in the last few decades..

So you retract your claim that the people who were duped in this thread, myself included, only objected to Obama personally, rather than his policies and the perceived, though obviously wrongheaded, hypocrisy of the quote.