FARK.com: (7229215) ▓nother politic▓l expert weighs in on Ob▓m▓'s st▓tements reg▓rding business

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		▓nother politic▓l expert weighs in on Ob▓m▓'s st▓tements reg▓rding business (politico.com)		190
		More: Dumbass, Pat Sajak

• • •

5213 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 6:12 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7229215

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

190 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

keylock71		2012-07-24 07:31:34 AM

He must have been really pissed about what Romney said to Olympians in 2002...

Either that or he's a partisan jackass "catapulting the propaganda".

Kibbler		2012-07-24 07:35:24 AM

Pat Who? Was he the dimwitted uncle on that episode of The Brady Bunch?

NewportBarGuy		2012-07-24 07:38:03 AM

IlGreven: Eh, I'd say Sajak's a smart guy. Not a political expert, but smart.

How f*cking hard is it to check the context of a quote if you plan on publishing a blog about it? He chooses not to engage in critical thinking and that makes him a f*cking idiot. Anyone who can spew off an article about a subject to which they are clearly misinformed need not be writing about anything at all. His signal to noise ratio is on par with the Timecube guy.

We have very different definitions of smart.

farkityfarker		2012-07-24 07:38:09 AM

Karac: First line of the wikipedia page for Wheel of Fortune:

Wheel of Fortune (or simply Wheel) is an American television game show created by Merv Griffin

Guess what Pat, you really didn't build that.

He wasn't even the original host if I recall correctly.

And he had a late night talk show that failed miserably.

But he has a hard job. Watching people spin a wheel and solve a puzzle he already has the answer to. His money is hard earned.

Bhruic		2012-07-24 07:41:19 AM

NewportBarGuy:
How f*cking hard is it to check the context of a quote if you plan on publishing a blog about it? He chooses not to engage in critical thinking and that makes him a f*cking idiot. Anyone who can spew off an article about a subject to which they are clearly misinformed need not be writing about anything at all. His signal to noise ratio is on par with the Timecube guy.

We have very different definitions of smart.

Really dude, if you're going to start out with "how hard is it to check the context of a quote", you might want to actually read the blog. I mean, since you're talking about "smart" and all. In my defintion of smart, someone would jump to conclusions about a blog they haven't read. They wouldn't then make a bunch of further incorrect assumptions about the contents of the blog that make them look more and more clueless.

Someone may be a "f*cking idiot", but it's not Sajak.

Bhruic		2012-07-24 07:42:08 AM

Ugh. wouldn't... someone wouldn't jumpt to conclusions...

keylock71		2012-07-24 07:42:33 AM

NewportBarGuy: How f*cking hard is it to check the context of a quote if you plan on publishing a blog about it?

Do you really think context matters to the mental midgets who eat this garbage up?

Jackson Herring		2012-07-24 07:44:27 AM

Weaver95: um...Obama hasn't said anything anti-business.

Too late, the narrative has already been set in stone.

NewportBarGuy		2012-07-24 07:45:44 AM

Bhruic: Really dude, if you're going to start out with "how hard is it to check the context of a quote", you might want to actually read the blog

Here it is:

Pat Sajak
Defining Moments
Pat Sajak · Jul 19 at 8:28am

It's as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled "potato" and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day. It's fun to imagine the hand-wringing that must be going on within the White House as staffers try to figure out how to undo the damage their boss has done with his anti-entrepenurial riff. Defining moments in politics are strange beasts. Sometimes they're only recognized in hindsight, while sometimes they throw the train off the tracks before a sentence has been completed. Sometimes their effect can be contained and minimized, while sometimes their effect on the political narrative mestastasizes. This one is very bad for the White House.

These defining moments take hold most devastatingly when they confirm what a large portion of the electorate already believes. Taken alone, it seems unfair that a single moment, an unguarded remark or a slip of the tongue can carry such weight. They're often dismissed as "gotcha" moments, but when voters are able to nod and say, "I knew it," these moments stick and do terrible damage. We have witnessed such a moment.

You go right ahead and point out it's brilliance to me. I'll wait.

farkityfarker		2012-07-24 07:47:27 AM

Jackson Herring: Weaver95: um...Obama hasn't said anything anti-business.

Too late, the narrative has already been set in stone.

Yet Obama's narrative on business probably rings true with far more Americans than Romney's.

It's just a matter of who's going to vote.

NewportBarGuy		2012-07-24 07:50:02 AM

keylock71: Do you really think context matters to the mental midgets who eat this garbage up?

Nope. Not even in the slightest. They simply seem to think that if they scream something loudly and often enough it will magically come true.

NewportBarGuy: it's

Goddammitsomuch!

keylock71		2012-07-24 07:51:27 AM

NewportBarGuy: Sajak: "It's as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled "potato" and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day."

Yeah, that's not hyperbolic bullshiat at all...

Bhruic		2012-07-24 07:52:08 AM

NewportBarGuy:
You go right ahead and point out it's brilliance to me. I'll wait.

Can I point out the strawman you just did instead? It'd be much faster, as I never said it was brilliant.

I did say it was accurate. President Obama misspoke. You and I both know that he didn't mean to imply that business owners didn't create their businesses himself. But it's very easy to spin it that way. It's extremely easy to spin it that way, in fact, because large numbers of people already suspected that he does think that way. And by spinning it that way, it becomes "the story". It doesn't matter any more what he meant, it matters what people believe he said. And, as Sajak said, "these moments stick and do terrible damage". Hopefully this one won't be as bad as he predicts, but if it gets enough traction, it very well could be.

PonceAlyosha		2012-07-24 07:53:23 AM

Bhruic: President Obama misspoke.

No, he did not. He said exactly what he meant to say, and it was a completely reasonable thing to say.

Wyalt Derp		2012-07-24 07:53:31 AM

Because it bears repeating in every stupid thread about this nontroversy:

Full quote:
"if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

GOP version:
"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Soy Cowboy		2012-07-24 07:53:43 AM

I already heard this news. I follow Pat Sajak on Twitter.

farkityfarker		2012-07-24 07:55:31 AM

Bhruic: NewportBarGuy:
How f*cking hard is it to check the context of a quote if you plan on publishing a blog about it? He chooses not to engage in critical thinking and that makes him a f*cking idiot. Anyone who can spew off an article about a subject to which they are clearly misinformed need not be writing about anything at all. His signal to noise ratio is on par with the Timecube guy.

We have very different definitions of smart.

Really dude, if you're going to start out with "how hard is it to check the context of a quote", you might want to actually read the blog. I mean, since you're talking about "smart" and all. In my defintion of smart, someone would jump to conclusions about a blog they haven't read. They wouldn't then make a bunch of further incorrect assumptions about the contents of the blog that make them look more and more clueless.

Someone may be a "f*cking idiot", but it's not Sajak.

I dunno.

It seems that if he were smart, he'd realize that posting his political positions online is going to polarize people and cost him viewers, no matter what position he takes.

Sometimes it's best to remain silent. Especially for people whose jobs are so vapid as his. All he does is read off the number the wheel lands on then repeats the letter the contestant says, and confirms if it's there.

I mean, seriously. Why does he think anyone cares about his opinions?

Jackson Herring		2012-07-24 07:55:47 AM

keylock71: Yeah, that's not hyperbolic bullshiat at all...

It's as if Obama flew a plane into the World Trade Center and sank the Arizona all in the same day!!!!

Zafler		2012-07-24 07:56:03 AM

Bhruic
Sajak:
It's fun to imagine the hand-wringing that must be going on within the White House as staffers try to figure out how to undo the damage their boss has done with his anti-entrepenurial riff.

This sentence completely undermines the spin you're trying to put on this. Sajak isn't saying he's being taken out of context, he apparently believes the spin whole-heartedly without finding out the context it was said in. How the fark did you read this the way you did when it includes comparing this to the pardon of Richard farking Nixon and that sentence?

crab66		2012-07-24 07:59:31 AM

jaggspb		2012-07-24 08:00:18 AM

djkutch: If I recall correctly, there are nude Vanna White pics on the internet.

Yes there are. Her issue of Playboy was the first one I ever saw. The photos are pretty tame and fairly classy by today's standards

Bhruic		2012-07-24 08:03:51 AM

PonceAlyosha: Bhruic: President Obama misspoke.

No, he did not. He said exactly what he meant to say, and it was a completely reasonable thing to say.

You can mean what you say and still say it badly. He said it badly. I obviously can't prove it, but I'd bet large amounts of money that he'd love to be able to go back and rephrase that in such a way as to get his point across without leaving the ambiguity in it. This is ammunition to the GOP, and they are going to milk it.

NewportBarGuy		2012-07-24 08:04:33 AM

Bhruic: President Obama misspoke.

Thank you for the clarification. You now share the same designation as Pat Sajak. Congrats, it was well earned. You'll also be awarded the home version of the game.

Hobodeluxe		2012-07-24 08:11:03 AM

Oh look another multi millionaire who will lie to keep his 3% tax cut.

Bhruic		2012-07-24 08:16:42 AM

NewportBarGuy: Bhruic: President Obama misspoke.

Thank you for the clarification. You now share the same designation as Pat Sajak. Congrats, it was well earned. You'll also be awarded the home version of the game.

Right, same thing you did with Sajak, skip right to the thing that (you believe) confirms your bias, and pile on your assumptions from there. Never mind the fact that I agreed with you that what President Obama actually said was fine. Rather, his intention behind his statement was fine. But none of his staff, had they proofed his remarks ahead of time, would have let him go out and state it in that fashion. They'd have known it was ripe for twisting, and rewrote it. So yes, he misspoke. What he meant was fine. How he said it was not.

Now if you want to cling to your delusional world view that everyone will perfectly understand what he meant, and no one will be fooled into believing the spin the Republicans are putting on it, fine. But that's what it is - a delusion.

wrs1864		2012-07-24 08:17:24 AM

Bhruic: Um, did anyone bother to read the link? He didn't say President Obama made any mistake in substance, he said that President Obama said it in such a way as to give great ammunition to the opposition. {...}

Sajak isn't wrong.

I don't think you read the article. Pat called it an "anti-entrepeneurial riff", which it wasn't. If anything, it was an anti-individualist riff, Obama was saying we can't succeed all by ourselves. I can see how that would rub people who idolize the "rugged individualist" and live in fear of anything even slightly "socialist" the wrong way, but Pat was wrong in what he said.

keylock71		2012-07-24 08:18:38 AM

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Yeah, that's not hyperbolic bullshiat at all...

It's as if Obama flew a plane into the World Trade Center and sank the Arizona all in the same day!!!!

So what is this? Obama's 7th or 8th Watergate?

Dancin_In_Anson		2012-07-24 08:19:21 AM

It's as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled "potato" and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day.

Ouch.

Kibbler		2012-07-24 08:19:40 AM

Shouldn't this be in the B-list Celebrity Gossip tab? Can't see how it's politics.

006deluxe		2012-07-24 08:20:22 AM

Bhruic: PonceAlyosha: Bhruic: President Obama misspoke.

No, he did not. He said exactly what he meant to say, and it was a completely reasonable thing to say.

You can mean what you say and still say it badly. He said it badly. I obviously can't prove it, but I'd bet large amounts of money that he'd love to be able to go back and rephrase that in such a way as to get his point across without leaving the ambiguity in it. This is ammunition to the GOP, and they are going to milk it.

There's no ambiguity if you actually bother to read the whole damn quote and understand the English language.

Jackson Herring		2012-07-24 08:21:36 AM

keylock71: Jackson Herring: keylock71: Yeah, that's not hyperbolic bullshiat at all...

It's as if Obama flew a plane into the World Trade Center and sank the Arizona all in the same day!!!!

So what is this? Obama's 7th or 8th Watergate?

It's Obama's Penn State

Bhruic		2012-07-24 08:23:56 AM

wrs1864: I don't think you read the article. Pat called it an "anti-entrepeneurial riff", which it wasn't. If anything, it was an anti-individualist riff, Obama was saying we can't succeed all by ourselves. I can see how that would rub people who idolize the "rugged individualist" and live in fear of anything even slightly "socialist" the wrong way, but Pat was wrong in what he said.

I did read it, and I did read that part. I took that to be virtually descriptive, rather than literally descriptive. Or, in other words, I took it as Sajak descriping the perception of the statement. Yes, if he meant it literally, and if he believed that President Obama actually meant it as an anti-entrepeneurial statement, then he's wrong about that part.

How it'll play out, on the other hand, I don't think he's as wrong about.

SlothB77		2012-07-24 08:24:01 AM

ftfa misspelled "potato"

cdn.blogs.sheknows.com

oblig.

NateGrey		2012-07-24 08:24:18 AM

shotglasss: Bhruic: Um, did anyone bother to read the link? He didn't say President Obama made any mistake in substance, he said that President Obama said it in such a way as to give great ammunition to the opposition. The spin that's being put on it is going to believed by a great many people, simply because that's how out-of-context quotes often work. Say it often enough and people believe it's true. Especially since (as Sajak points out) people already believed that about Obama in the first place.

Sajak isn't wrong.

But some people think he attacked the Black JeebusTM and now must be destroyed.

Only Republican morons use nicknames like this.

It really shows their intelligence.

HotWingConspiracy		2012-07-24 08:25:20 AM

Obama in a landslide, even if the election was today.

An out of context quote has become the only thing the Romney campaign has, and he can't ride that until November.

Where are those tax records anyhow?

NateGrey		2012-07-24 08:25:51 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: It's as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled "potato" and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day.

Ouch.

I guess we all have to Vote Romney, you must be excited, a third Bush term.

Bhruic		2012-07-24 08:26:43 AM

006deluxe:
There's no ambiguity if you actually bother to read the whole damn quote and understand the English language.

Yes, exactly the point. I'm sure you've read it and understood it. I've read it and understood it. And the majority of the American public almost certainly won't be reading it (and therefore not understanding it). That (to me at least) is the thrust of Sajak's point. People aren't going to go look up what President Obama actually said, and see if it matches what people are saying he said, they are going to listen to the out-of-context quote, take the interpretation they are given, and run with it. No, not everyone, but a significant number will.

President Obama is a decent speaker. He easily could have phrased it differently, in such a way as to get his meaning across plainly without the possibility of misunderstanding. That he didn't is a mistake.

keylock71		2012-07-24 08:29:02 AM

Yes, Ol' Pat's just speaking the truth... No political agenda at all.

To prove it, here's some of Pat's other insightful and moderate political opinions:

Pat Sajak: Political Sage

PonceAlyosha		2012-07-24 08:29:56 AM

Bhruic: People aren't going to go look up what President Obama actually said,

Pat Sajak, for instance.

Iceberg659		2012-07-24 08:30:30 AM

Pat Sajak has the biggest farking head in the history of life. He's like a lollipop with hair.

EnviroDude		2012-07-24 08:31:00 AM

Do you know how I know Sajak is right? Look at the howls from the left defending Obama and attacking the righties.

This is the biggest screw up from Obama since he said he wanted to " spread the wealth around". Except this time there isn't a middle class plumber wanna be to attack for asking a question.

NewportBarGuy		2012-07-24 08:32:49 AM

EnviroDude: Do you know how I know Sajak is right?

Because you speak the same language. We get it.

Tor_Eckman		2012-07-24 08:32:58 AM

Bhruic: 006deluxe:
There's no ambiguity if you actually bother to read the whole damn quote and understand the English language.

Yes, exactly the point. I'm sure you've read it and understood it. I've read it and understood it. And the majority of the American public almost certainly won't be reading it (and therefore not understanding it). That (to me at least) is the thrust of Sajak's point. People aren't going to go look up what President Obama actually said, and see if it matches what people are saying he said, they are going to listen to the out-of-context quote, take the interpretation they are given, and run with it. No, not everyone, but a significant number will.

President Obama is a decent speaker. He easily could have phrased it differently, in such a way as to get his meaning across plainly without the possibility of misunderstanding. That he didn't is a mistake.

You should learn to pick your battles. Anything anyone says can be twisted into something totally different. The only way to avoid this is to not speak at all. The president doesn't have this option.

Obama didn't misspeak, or slip up, or say anything that any person with half a brain doesn't understand. It has been twisted into something else by Romney's idiot campaign staff, and is being pushed by any right wing clown with a blog like Sajak.

To try to argue otherwise is foolish.

peasandcarrots		2012-07-24 08:38:01 AM

Man, people really are hearing what they want to hear in what the President said, aren't they?

I agree with the philosophy that no one gets rich alone - my father wouldn't have been a very successful businessman without clients. But this deifying of business owners can't be healthy. A lot of them seem to actually think that they really did become successful "on their own."

Bhruic		2012-07-24 08:38:43 AM

Tor_Eckman:
You should learn to pick your battles. Anything anyone says can be twisted into something totally different. The only way to avoid this is to not speak at all. The president doesn't have this option.

Obama didn't misspeak, or slip up, or say anything that any person with half a brain doesn't understand. It has been twisted into something else by Romney's idiot campaign staff, and is being pushed by any right wing clown with a blog like Sajak.

To try to argue otherwise is foolish.

As I've already said, politicians have speechwriters for a reason. If you have your remarks scored ahead of time, it greatly reduces the chances of having statements like this misinterpretted.

I just don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit this could have been phrased better? Do they think that if they don't admit it, somehow people will be unable to use it against him? Or do they honestly think there's no way that people could be mislead on this one? As if people haven't been mislead by out-of-context quotes before.

NateGrey		2012-07-24 08:40:06 AM

EnviroDude: Do you know how I know Sajak is right? Look at the howls from the left defending Obama and attacking the righties.

This is the biggest screw up from Obama since he said he wanted to " spread the wealth around". Except this time there isn't a middle class plumber wanna be to attack for asking a question.

Thanks Rush, if it tweaks the libs it validates your ideology!

/Vote Republican

AJTressler		2012-07-24 08:40:44 AM

If your opponents have to engage in quote mining in order to attack your statement, then you didn't commit a gaffe. Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye is constantly misused by creationists, but that doesn't mean Darwin screwed up. All it means is that creationists have no interest in honest debate. The same principle applies here.

rudemix		2012-07-24 08:43:23 AM

Bhruic: Tor_Eckman:
You should learn to pick your battles. Anything anyone says can be twisted into something totally different. The only way to avoid this is to not speak at all. The president doesn't have this option.

Obama didn't misspeak, or slip up, or say anything that any person with half a brain doesn't understand. It has been twisted into something else by Romney's idiot campaign staff, and is being pushed by any right wing clown with a blog like Sajak.

To try to argue otherwise is foolish.

As I've already said, politicians have speechwriters for a reason. If you have your remarks scored ahead of time, it greatly reduces the chances of having statements like this misinterpretted.

I just don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit this could have been phrased better? Do they think that if they don't admit it, somehow people will be unable to use it against him? Or do they honestly think there's no way that people could be mislead on this one? As if people haven't been mislead by out-of-context quotes before.

Many sentences can be parsed better and be more grammatically and linguistically correct. This 'error' of the President's was one of them. Could it have been phrased better? Absolutely. I just don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit there's alot of semantical hair splitting for no reason other than Romney's campaign is clown shoes and has nothing better to go on.

006deluxe		2012-07-24 08:43:27 AM

Bhruic: Tor_Eckman:
You should learn to pick your battles. Anything anyone says can be twisted into something totally different. The only way to avoid this is to not speak at all. The president doesn't have this option.

Obama didn't misspeak, or slip up, or say anything that any person with half a brain doesn't understand. It has been twisted into something else by Romney's idiot campaign staff, and is being pushed by any right wing clown with a blog like Sajak.

To try to argue otherwise is foolish.

As I've already said, politicians have speechwriters for a reason. If you have your remarks scored ahead of time, it greatly reduces the chances of having statements like this misinterpretted.

I just don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit this could have been phrased better? Do they think that if they don't admit it, somehow people will be unable to use it against him? Or do they honestly think there's no way that people could be mislead on this one? As if people haven't been mislead by out-of-context quotes before.

I'm waiting for you to rephrase the quote, without changing the meaning, to prevent editing in this manner.

rufus-t-firefly		2012-07-24 08:45:47 AM

keylock71: NewportBarGuy: Sajak: "It's as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled "potato" and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day."

Yeah, that's not hyperbolic bullshiat at all...

We've discovered Captain Hyperbole's secret identity.

And here we thought Sajak was just a moon-faced twat.*

_{*Ed Finnerty, that was a good one.}

Displayed 50 of 190 comments