Words Matter

Most people listen, but don’t hear. An excellent example was Obama’s nomination speech in 2008, where he made one completely nonsensical statement after another – to wild cheering.

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick ….  this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal

Generations from now, we won’t be looking back or talking to our children. We will be dead. We have had doctors and cared for the sick since the dawn of man. Sea level has nothing to do with speeches by snake oil salesmen.

Obama obviously enjoys spouting mindless gibberish to useful idiots, and watching them fawn. Earlier in the speech he said :

“It’s time to give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home”

During that same campaign he said :

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”

And he also said :

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

A civilian security force as powerful and well funded as the military? That is the ultimate nightmare of every free human. In the past, that was called the KGB or SS

If people actually listened to and understood what Obama was saying, he would never have been elected to any office. But his greatest joy in life seems to be manipulating gullible, trusting people.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Words Matter

  1. gator69 says:

    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Skeeter

  2. _Jim says:

    A civilian security force as powerful and well funded as the military? That is the ultimate nightmare of every free human. In the past, that was called the KGB or SS

    I. R. S.

    Responsible for more ‘financial strip searches’ than all the police departments combined across America ..

    .

  3. Orwell “1984” “V for Vendetta” The infinite echoes of history.

  4. Robertv says:

    “But his greatest joy in life seems to be manipulating gullible, trusting people.”

    And he is damn good in it. Most people in the people’s republic of the EU still think he is doing a great job.

    • bkivey says:

      I don’t think he’s that intelligent. The evidence (no publicly revealed transcripts, no professional publication while a law professor) is circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is not no evidence. Part of the Progressive pathology is psychological projection, and the emphasis on the Koch’s may well be a diversionary tactic to deflect attention from those pulling Obama’s strings.

  5. Kent Clizbe says:

    Puzzling. Frightening. But why has our great nation sunk to the depths represented by Obama?

    It was a long time coming. It took 80+ years. But Normal-America is destroyed.

    Why do Politically Correct Progressives hate Normal-America?

    Why do they strive so zealously to dismantle our capitalist economy (what’s left of it)? Why are global warming fanatics so out of reach of logic and reason?

    Answers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVPH_jCBEvA

    • _Jim says:

      re: Kent Clizbe July 5, 2014 at 3:50 pm
      Puzzling. Frightening. But why has our great nation sunk to the depths represented by Obama?

      He was elected by the FSA (Free Shit Army) against a squish who didn’t show any determination, just the ‘usual’ song and dance for a pol. Romney also said some really stupid things that were caught on tape, and th Fat Man from NJ hanging around with Obama after Hurr. Sandy didn’t help ‘optics’ either.

      Obama actually spoke with authority and with confidence. Romney really never ‘made his case’. O’s base thusly turned out, and Romney’s didn’t. Not much more naval introspection is required than that.

      .

  6. Ernest Bush says:

    I remember being frightened at that speech because I understood what he was really saying. It is more frightening to see how quickly it has unfolded. I’m given hope by watching people stand up to the government at the Bundy Ranch and in the California town where the government is trying to place diseased children in their midst. Not the best place to make a stand, but it has to start somewhere.

  7. Anthony S says:

    Noticed that there’s a group of people downtown getting signatures to impeach Obama today.

    • _Jim says:

      Better solution would be to get those people to address their state legislatures and commence an Article V constitutional convention … propose some REAL changes vs simple ‘window dressing’. Give the states back their due rights.

  8. WFC says:

    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    “A civilian security force as powerful and well funded as the military? That is the ultimate nightmare of every free human. In the past, that was called the KGB or SS”

    Or, to refer to a different post, the “militia”.

    • As much as I hate to post incredibly stupid comments, I’m going to let your’s through.

      • WFC says:

        “Incredibly stupid” maybe, but the whole point of the militia – both in the early US and the English tradition which it borrowed from (and the anarchist Catalonian tradition which borrowed from both) – was that the people should be as, if not better, armed than the forces of the Crown/Government, and that the quid pro quo says that the people (the militia) were under a duty to defend the Crown if it was attacked.

        I might add that for large parts of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the English people were entitled to be better armed than the police.

  9. Rosco says:

    He makes the “Communist Manifesto” seem like a nursery rhyme. People should actually read it to see that it is far less authoritarian than the musings of today’s political elite on either side of politics.

    George Orwell would be amazed at how he manifestly under-estimated modern political manipulation !

  10. WFC says:

    “Conflating”?

    Hmmm.

    • WFC says:

      To expand. The way you attack these people is to take them at their word, and use it against them. He wants a “civilian national security force”, you point out that he already has one, one which is already written into the constitution he is pledged to uphold and enforce – and ask why the “funding” isn’t heading that way.

      And if he says he meant something different, you ask him why.

      These people are incapable of saying what they really mean. They always try to cloak themselves in touchy freely pap. Use that against them.

      But this ought go be teaching grandma to suck eggs!

  11. Like you, I saw Obama’s Acceptance Speech as pure nonsense. I found it incredibly hard to believe that so many were impressed by the speech and so few were able or inclined to put it to the ridicule that any rational thinker would see it deserved. That speech should have been the death knell of his campaign, but for a severe want of rational Americans.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Professor Scott Armstrong did an experiment that shows what was going on with Obama’s Acceptance Speech.

      The Dr Fox Hypothesis

      J Scott Armstrong, associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania, has demonstrated in a series of tests for both written and spoken communication, that people are impressed by “experts” from within their own field even when what is said is completely unintelligible.

      Armstrong calls this the “Dr. Fox hypothesis”, based on an experiment in which an actor posed as Dr Myron Fox and delivered a lecture to a group of science professionals of “double talk”, patching raw material from a Scientific American article into non-sequiters and contradictory statements interspersed with jokes and meaningless references to unrelated topics. An anonymous questionnaire was filled out afterwards in which the professionals reported that they found the lecture clear and stimulating….

      Bafflegab Pays by J. Scott Armstrong
      https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public:main.file&fileID=1979

      pdfs.journals.lww.com/ajnonline/1982/82090/Bafflegab.47.pdf

      Unntelligible Management Research and Academic Prestige by J. Scott Armstrong
      https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=marketing_papers

      The lecture was comprised of double talk, meaningless words, false logic, contradictory statements, irrelevant humor, and meaningless references to unrelated topics. Judging from a questionnaire administered after the talk, the audience found Dr. Fox’s lecture to be clear and stimulating. None of the subjects realized that the lecture was pure nonsense [Naftulin et al., 1973]. If an unintelligible communication is received from a legitimate source and if this communication claims to be in the recipient’s area of expertise, recipients might assume that they are wasting their time because they receive no useful knowledge. In terms of knowledge, they would be wasting their time. But their involvement in this activity may lead them to try to justify the time spent. Furthermore, the greater the unintelligibility, the greater the need to rationalize about the time spent (e.g., if you cannot understand a paper, it must be a high level paper). This might be called the Dr. Fox hypothesis: An unintelligible communication from a legitimate source in the recipient’s area of expertise will increase the recipient’s rating of the author’s competence.

      If the Dr. Fox hypothesis is valid, researchers who want to impress their colleagues should write less intelligible papers. Journals seeking respectability should publish less intelligible papers. Academic meetings should feature speakers who make little sense. This strategy would be beneficial for advancement by an individual researcher or by a journal. Its major drawback is that it does not promote the advancement of knowledge….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *