See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: Limbaugh Falls For A Hoax About The President's College Thesis
Source:
Salon
URL Source: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/ ... /10/23/obama_thesis/index.html
Published: Oct 24, 2009
Author: Alex Koppelman
Post Date: 2009-10-24 12:45:41 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 24409
Comments: 199
On Friday, it seemed for a moment -- at least to Rush Limbaugh's listeners -- that the right had finally found the smoking gun to prove that President Obama secretly hates the U.S., its founders and even the Constitution. Limbaugh read his radio audience an excerpt from what he said was Obama's senior thesis, which he wrote while at Columbia University. After more than a year shrouded in secrecy by the Obama campaign and a compliant media, the thesis had finally emerged, and it was even worse than some had feared. The excerpt read by Limbaugh: [T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy. Limbaugh was, naturally, up in arms about this, calling the college-aged Obama a "little boy," and saying, "he still shares those same feelings." Only not so much. As a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh, Obama didn't technically write a thesis at Columbia -- at the time, Columbia didn't really have senior theses -- though he did write a thesis-length paper. But it was on Soviet nuclear disarmament, not the Constitution. Limbaugh and many others -- including Fox News' FoxNation.com -- fell for a hoax, believing that a post put up by a conservative blogger in August as satire was the truth. Apparently, Pajamas Media's Michael Ledeen was the conduit, as he dug it up and posted it earlier this week, apparently believing it to be true. (Not the first time Ledeen and Pajamas Media have been embarrassed by something he posted -- back in January of 2007, he reported that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had died. Khamenei remains alive to this day.) Again, a bit of basic research would have prevented all this, as this isn't the first time conservatives have treated this particular blogger's satire as if it were true. Limbaugh noted later on in his show that it seemed the excerpts were fake, though he said he didn't care, both because of a series of quotes falsely attributed to him recently and because, "I know Obama thinks it." Update: Ledeen has put up a post noting that the excerpt is a fake, and that he fell for a satire.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 187.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Limbaugh doesn't research anything; he reads what his staff puts in front of his face each day when he stops in the studio on his way to the golf course.
I research some things. Tell me something, has Obama chosen some Maoists and Marxists as czars?
Tell me something, has Obama chosen some Maoists and Marxists as czars? Why not start a new thread on that and I'll consider it?
Because Nesters like yourself don't deserve new threads. Answer the question.
When did you become the boss of me?
Since when does the simple act of asking a question become a matter of who is being a boss? Given the history of this forum, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Is it that hard to answer, or is it more that you are a partisan and have trouble agreeing that Obama is surrounded by Maoists and Marxists?
And I said ask it on another thread instead of hijacking this one.
Don't you fret about threads being hijacked, ok? I'm more concerned with your fellow Obama fellators hijacking the forum. Still no answer?
Still no answer? Well, as long as were asking questions, do you find having a small dick to be a problem? Answer the question.
Answer the question. Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama has appointed Maoists and Marxists to the position of czar (the answer is YES, was that hard?) I know y'all have trouble being objective when it comes to Him, but man, you've really exposed yourself (no pun intended). Given time, all you leftists do.
Ah, so now he's my hero. BTW, I'm sorry that you've got a small dick. On the positive side, it probably goes well with your tiny brain.
Ah, so now he's my hero. BTW, I'm sorry that you've got a small dick. On the positive side, it probably goes well with your tiny brain. Another diversionary tactic. Poor little Troll may be a paid and trained little troll. Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
Would that be similar to the diversionary tactic in post #2?
It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination. Of course you are again engaging in diversion and avoidance and such is duly noted. And again the reference: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
It has nothing whatever to do with my comment in #1. Try reading it again. Here, I'll help you. Limbaugh doesn't do research. He reads what his staff hands him to read, then heads to the golf course. I fail to see what that has to do with Obama's czars because it has nothing at all to do with Obama's czars.
It has nothing whatever to do with my comment in #1. Try reading it again. Here, I'll help you. Limbaugh doesn't do research. He reads what his staff hands him to read, then heads to the golf course. I fail to see what that has to do with Obama's czars because it has nothing at all to do with Obama's czars. Am I defending the Mahajunkie? No. Limbaugh does lots of research and so do his handlers at whatever PsyOp group he works for. Because he is dishonest and in the business of manipulating his audience he will make "slips" such as this. Likely it was an intentionaly "slip" with the reverse action to give his "opposition" a handle to hold on to. Personally I don't listen to the bastard, grant him no credibility, and treat him with utter contempt and disdain.
What a crock of shit.
You're beating a dead horse Bucky. Do you expect to provoke me into defending "Pills" Limbuggerer? Fat chance. I despise the bloated chancre. The only point of convergence is that Oh'bummer does have a lot of communist connections (as well as CIA like dear old Mom).
Well, golly and gee whiz now, you are posing animated gif files. Shucks and gosh darn it. Ohh, you seem to pose some interesting stuff, though ... did you create those gif files? Or did you plagiarize them?
Coming from a drunk waste like you, ha ha ha; you haven't had an original thought in decades. And you know I know...
I know you know diddly squat. You have turned against America relishing the pompous charlatan radio show talkmeister Limbaugh.
Do you wish that I post names, list addresses and post graphics. buck ?
Do what ya gotta do fruitcake.
since you like 'proofs', i'm going to see to it personally that an example you are. i'm ready to light the fuse. are you REALLY ready to be among the 1st to burn ?
There are no replies to Comment # 187. End Trace Mode for Comment # 187.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAs a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh,
#2. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#1)
#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
I research some things.
#4. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#3)
#11. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
Answer the question.
#13. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#11)
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
Given the history of this forum, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Is it that hard to answer, or is it more that you are a partisan and have trouble agreeing that Obama is surrounded by Maoists and Marxists?
#22. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#18)
And I said ask it on another thread instead of hijacking this one
#27. To: Jethro Tull (#22)
Don't you fret about threads being hijacked, ok? I'm more concerned with your fellow Obama fellators hijacking the forum.
#35. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#27)
Well, as long as were asking questions, do you find having a small dick to be a problem?
#38. To: Jethro Tull (#35)
Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama
#48. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#38)
Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama
#53. To: Original_Intent (#48)
Another diversionary tactic.
#60. To: IDon'tThinkSo, Jethro Tull, Rotara, all (#53)
#63. To: Original_Intent (#60)
It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination.
#74. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#63)
It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination.
#77. To: Original_Intent (#74)
I [Limbaugh] was totally misinterpreted and taken out of context.
#96. To: buckeroo (#77)
#102. To: Original_Intent (#96)
... that the piece was planted with Limbaugh with the intent to help delegitimize questions regarding Oh'bummer. -- Original_Intent
#167. To: buckeroo (#102)
Well, golly and gee whiz now, you are posing animated gif files. Shucks and gosh darn it. Ohh, you seem to pose some interesting stuff, though ... did you create those gif files? Or did you plagiarize them?
#172. To: Rotara (#167)
And you know I know...
#179. To: buckeroo (#172)
I know you know diddly squat.
#180. To: Rotara (#179)
#187. To: buckeroo (#180)
Replies to Comment # 187.