The President Speaks Of Hope For The Future

[Hossfly]

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

 

[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.

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

 

[Hossfly]

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!

 

[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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

I admit to being fooled. That fact doesn't change anything, however. Pretending that people were objecting to the quote, rather than Obama saying the quote while his actions were completely opposite, is dishonest nonsense. Pretending that the quote being said by Eisenhower instead of Obama changes nothing is also dishonest nonsense. Yes, Statistik fooled many of us, but he proved himself dishonest in the process. Good for him.

- Pretending people objected to the quotes in a vacuum. - Dishonest
- Pretending people were objecting to Eisenhower saying the quotes. - Dishonest

Again, anybody can say anything. Obama and Eisenhower can say the exact same thing, and it's possible to believe one and not the other based on the fact that they're two entirely different people who did different things while in office. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, and that was the whole purpose of the thread.

Pretending that people were objecting to President Eisenhower. A lie.

I'm sorry, but ignoring the answers that I've given doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Hossfly]

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 .

Because RWs hate a country destroying bastard.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Not exactly, I can't include you with my next statement because I would be too inclusive, but a majority of those "duped" sucked themselves in because they were driven by partisan hate. They jumped all over this thing and expounded their hate for the man.
I can't say I think you're a partisan "hater" based on the posts of yours that I have read over time. You seem to me like a person dedicated to libertarian principles which of course clash with Obama World.

 

[Slyhunter]

You win a seegar, wingnut.

You, of all people, calling someone a wingnut is rich

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.

I didn't hate the quote.
I hated the hypocrite whom I supposed made the quote. Because if he made the quote he's a hypocrite. Obama would never say anything like that and mean it.

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

Because RWs hate a country destroying bastard.

We already know you hate Ike

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

Quote a single instance when someone argued against the text of the message and not the person who they thought made the message for being a hypocrite if that is what he actually said, which he didn't.

 

[Dot Com]

This thread had to leave a mark on the likes of The Rabbi & HereWeGoAgain among others

This thread proves that blind rw hate trumps reality

 

[hadit]

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

Obama has no credibility. If he said the sky is blue, you'd better check to be sure.

 

[Hossfly]

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 .

Because RWs hate a country destroying bastard.

We already know you hate Ike

Buddy, when I joined the army, Ike was my CIC and a damn good one. I was too young to vote for him but in the case of Obamahdi I didn't have hope and I didn't want change. I could visualize Shariah law from this pretender.

 

[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.

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

Quote a single instance when someone argued against the text of the message and not the person who they thought made the message for being a hypocrite if that is what he actually said, which he didn't.

Nu-uuh. KK made the claim this thread was "dishonest" and "lying" --- it's on HIM to make that case, not on me to make the opposite.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

Quote a single instance when someone argued against the text of the message and not the person who they thought made the message for being a hypocrite if that is what he actually said, which he didn't.

Nu-uuh. KK made the claim this thread was "dishonest" and "lying" --- it's on HIM to make that case, not on me to make the opposite.

Don't I count?
I make the claim that nobody said anything against the text of the message just against the alleged messenger. Prove me wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

Because RWs hate a country destroying bastard.

We already know you hate Ike

Buddy, when I joined the army, Ike was my CIC and a damn good one. I was too young to vote for him but in the case of Obamahdi I didn't have hope and I didn't want change. I could visualize Shariah law from this pretender.

Its a shame how you turned on the guy in this thread

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

Quote a single instance when someone argued against the text of the message and not the person who they thought made the message for being a hypocrite if that is what he actually said, which he didn't.

Nu-uuh. KK made the claim this thread was "dishonest" and "lying" --- it's on HIM to make that case, not on me to make the opposite.

Don't I count?
I make the claim that nobody said anything against the text of the message just against the alleged messenger. Prove me wrong.

Ike was the messenger

 

[Hossfly]

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 .

Because RWs hate a country destroying bastard.

We already know you hate Ike

Buddy, when I joined the army, Ike was my CIC and a damn good one. I was too young to vote for him but in the case of Obamahdi I didn't have hope and I didn't want change. I could visualize Shariah law from this pretender.

Its a shame how you turned on the guy in this thread

Where at, RW?

 

[Antares]

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.

I've invited you at least three times to illustrate where this "dishonesty" is. Now what am I gonna do with all these crickets?

And again --- how is your assumption the fault of somebody else?

And what reaction did I judge? The assumption you just admitted to?

These are the questions of our time...

I admit to being fooled. That fact doesn't change anything, however. Pretending that people were objecting to the quote, rather than Obama saying the quote while his actions were completely opposite, is dishonest nonsense. Pretending that the quote being said by Eisenhower instead of Obama changes nothing is also dishonest nonsense. Yes, Statistik fooled many of us, but he proved himself dishonest in the process. Good for him.

- Pretending people objected to the quotes in a vacuum. - Dishonest
- Pretending people were objecting to Eisenhower saying the quotes. - Dishonest

Again, anybody can say anything. Obama and Eisenhower can say the exact same thing, and it's possible to believe one and not the other based on the fact that they're two entirely different people who did different things while in office. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, and that was the whole purpose of the thread.

Pretending that people were objecting to President Eisenhower. A lie.

I'm sorry, but ignoring the answers that I've given doesn't mean they don't exist.

That is just how Pogo rolls, he is however consistent.

 

[Dot Com]

Sad, sad, day in America that Righties attack their own when they think a non-Repub said something

 

[Antares]

Sad, sad, day in America that Righties attack their own when they think a non-Repub said something

If you think rw is a rightie you need to be fitted for one of those special red helmets.