Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Didn't have to. Old trick.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?
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?
You, of all people, calling someone a wingnut is richYou win a seegar, wingnut.
So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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
Plus, going back to post #1 and reading the first couple pages, the rest of the wingnuts were clued in to the whole thing. In reading their replies and smirky remarks, I know not one of them have the brains not to be fooled either if the shoe was on the other foot..Look at the title of the thread and then read the 1st post. Almost 100% of readers would assume it meant Obama said them. All because the quotes didnt reference the author of the quotes, which I believe is one of the rules of USMB. Also nobody disputed the quotes. You liberal pukes go ahead with your juvenile 'gotcha' posts.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.What a shame that Conservatives hate Dwight D. Eisenhower so much, he really was a great president.
I just guess no one outside of Jesus himself will be Conservative enough for todays Conservatives...
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.
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.
So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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
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.So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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 ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?
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.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, 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.What a shame that Conservatives hate Dwight D. Eisenhower so much, he really was a great president.
I just guess no one outside of Jesus himself will be Conservative enough for todays Conservatives...
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.
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.
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.So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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 ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?
"If you were half as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be half as smart as I think you are."You, of all people, calling someone a wingnut is richYou win a seegar, wingnut.
All you people proved that you are low-info, rw sheeple
President Obama was right- if his name is attached to something, Repubs automatically hate it.
So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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
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.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, 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 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.
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.
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. ..
Tell me you agree with this statement, dullard:
Beg for the nanny-state to intercede? Where? Did I say you broke any rules or report you to the mods? Nope. I don't want you banned or removed or anything. More dishonesty on your part.No. Its merely your opinion that Pres. Osama 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.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, 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 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.
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.
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
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.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.So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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 ---- your lack of cynicism is our fault?
Speculation fallacy, and way off the mark anyway. See post 284.
You, of all people, calling someone a wingnut is richYou win a seegar, wingnut.
All you people proved that you are low-info, rw sheeple
President Obama was right- if his name is attached to something, Repubs automatically hate 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.So there you go. You had to be informed beforehand otherwise you also would have been duped, therefore your condescension is unwarranted.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
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
