A brilliant plan.

[louixo]

Part I .......
(This is absolutely brilliant!)

A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.

I love it when a plan comes together!



Part II:
(Also Brilliant, by other standards)
10 Poorest Cities in America and how did it happen?
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%


What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI
(1st on the poverty rate list)
hasn't elected a Republican mayor
since 1961

Buffalo , NY (2nd)
hasn't elected one since 1954

Cincinnati , OH - (3rd)
since 1984

Cleveland , OH - (4th)
since 1989

Miami , FL - (5th)
has never had a Republican mayor

St. Louis , MO - (6th)
since 1949

El Paso , TX - (7th)
has never had a Republican mayor

Milwaukee , WI - (8th)
since 1908

Philadelphia , PA - (9th)
since 1952

Newark , NJ - (10th)
since 1907

Einstein once said,
'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats .. yet they are still POOR.

Part III:


(Most Brilliant!!!)
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

 

[Turtle]

It's funny because it's true.

Well, except for that last part (and some of the second part is only partially true). None of those axioms were spoken or written by Lincoln. Those are by the Rev. William John Henry Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister and notable public speaker who served as director of the pro-employer Citizens' Industrial Alliance, a position he held when, in 1916, he produced a booklet of "nuggets" from his lectures, which included the above maxims. In 1942, a publication by the Committee for Constitutional Government entitled "Lincoln on Limitations" was produced which had a list of Lincoln's quotes and beside it the above list of Boetcker's quotes. A typesetting error in an early version of the pamphlet resulted in each list having the names of Lincoln and Boetcker erroneously switched. The error was corrected in subsequent printings.

There is a book called, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions by Paul F. Boller, John George. In it the authors showcase quotes, some of which were fabricated entirely, that have been misattributed intentionally and otherwise. It's a nifty read, and having it on hand is a great way to realize just how many people are just full of crap on the Internet when they use quotes to make a political point.

Using quotations is a time-honored practice. There have always been people who liked to liven up what they were saying with appropriate statements from the writings of others. Today, however, especially with the Internet, quotations tend to be polemical (argumentative) rather than decorative. People use them to try and prove points rather than to provide pleasure. "Quotemen" do not simply quote - they quote in order to score points, usually of a political nature, and thereby throw their opponents off balance. Often they attribute fabricated the quote to a highly esteemed authority, like Jefferson or Lincoln or some legitimate-sounding authority like a high ranking military person or a doctor, depending on the context and the desired effect, in order to bolster their own position.

The book Nice Guys Finish Seventh is the book that established author Ralph Keyes the authority as a quote verifier. He wrote another book called The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When, and is a great companion to They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions.

One of Ralph Keyes' axioms of misquotations is "Famous quotes need famous mouths," and the fulfillment of that need, especially on the Internet during the argument of a political or personal position, is to put the quote on the lips of someone famous. A snazzy little quote used to make a point carries far greater weight if it was said by someone famous, instead of someone nobody ever heard of.

Abraham Lincoln never said, "You cannot fool all the people all the time." Thomas Jefferson never said, "That government is best which governs least." And Sherlock Holmes never said, not even once in all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books, "Elementary my dear Watson." People sure think they said these things, though.

Did you know that while Vince Lombardi did actually say, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" in 1959, he was quoting from a 1950 speech of UCLA coach Red Saunders when he said it.

Brooklyn Dodgers manager Leo Durocher said to a reporter while pointing out opposing Giants manager Mel Ott, "See number four over there? A nicer guy never drew breath. But where is he? In seventh place."

 

[cheri1122]

Question: in the two generations that have elapsed since abortion was legalized, has the percentage of Democrats declined at all?

 

[AMonger]

Question: in the two generations that have elapsed since abortion was legalized, has the percentage of Democrats declined at all?

Nor will it. There will always be those who, as Bastiat said, seek to live at the expense of others. That being the case, there will, unfortunately, always be Demon-crats.

 

[spongebox1]

Nor will it. There will always be those who, as Bastiat said, seek to live at the expense of others. That being the case, there will, unfortunately, always be Demon-crats.

Demon-crats? Seriously?

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[LDB]

The idiots in charge give amnesty and legalize them faster than the murderers can abort them so the plan will never work.

 

[AMonger]

Demon-crats? Seriously?

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

There were a few incidents that convinced me the Demon-crats were pure evil.

The first was Al Gore's attempted theft of a national election. Having correctly predicted that Florida would be where the election was won or lost, they sent rabble rousers and known vote stealers like Daley from Chicago. Their plan was, "If we lose, we ask jump up and yell 'FOUL!'" They alerted the political landscape with their fraud.

Then there was the funeral of Sen. Wellstone. He was a despicable little socialist, but he deserved a dignified funeral, but it was not to be, thanks to the Demon-crats.

Then there was a New Jersey election in which the unthinkable was about to happen: a Republican was about to be elected. The Demon-crats wanted to take their criminal, moniker of Toricelli, off the ballot and replace him with a candidate with a chance, which was illegal at that late date. So they judge shopped until they found a judge who wanted the same thing and signed off on it.

At that point, I knew they were pure evil and they'll always be Demon-crats. And that's before the election fraud that "elected" Senator Al Franken or just reelected Harry Reid.

Yes, Demon-crats.

WWATD? What would Andy Taylor do?

 

[cheri1122]

One could easily populate a list of "evil" perpetrated by Republicans, too, as neither side is all good or all bad.
Childish namecalling does nothing but make the writer look immature, and therefore, not worth paying attention to.
Just a general observation.

 

[AMonger]

One could easily populate a list of "evil" perpetrated by Republicans, too, as neither side is all good or all bad.
Childish namecalling does nothing but make the writer look immature, and therefore, not worth paying attention to.
Just a general observation.

When the Republicans do it, it's generally against other Republicans. Demon-crats excel at illegal, immoral, & unethical actions. Comparatively speaking, the Republicans are choir boys.



WWATD? What would Andy Taylor do?

 

[LDB]

Basically you have BAD AND EVIL and BAD AND EVIL. Which is which is obvious to anyone not a part of BAD AND EVIL or on the dole of BAD AND EVIL.

 

[spongebox1]

Its the pursuit of personal preference, regardless of party regardless of right and wrong, good or bad its all about personal gain in politics, there are equal amounts of evil on both sides and its been that way for some time now. I truly pay little attention to the majority of political individuals because they are all out for themselves or for a small group of power players.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Maverick]

One of Ralph Keyes' axioms of misquotations is "Famous quotes need famous mouths," and the fulfillment of that need, especially on the Internet during the argument of a political or personal position, is to put the quote on the lips of someone famous. A snazzy little quote used to make a point carries far greater weight if it was said by someone famous, instead of someone nobody ever heard of.

Interesting this person feels that way. I actually focus much more on the quote itself....and very little about the person, or who said it. This sounds more like the same people who always take hold of an idol, or need someone to look up to or admire.

For example, here's one of my favorites, and have no clue who coined it:

"Write your disappointments and failures in sand......your blessings carve in stone".

I wonder if the cart is before the horse sometimes. Just for conversation sake; does the quote turn to admiration toward the deliverer, or do we admire the person....thus enjoying the quote?

 

[xiggi]

I personally like good quotes even those by unknown. I think what it says is the only thing that really matters.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[Turtle]

I agree, I prefer the quote for the pleasure of the quote. But it all depends on the context of the quote. Those who use quotes to add richness to a discussion use thought-provoking quotes, such as the sand and stone quote.

But in a debate/argument when someone uses a quote to bolster their position, particularly a political position, as if to say, "Hey, look at this! Someone really smart, and someone people admire, agree with me! And you should agree with what they said!"

The example in the OP is a good example of that, where the current conservative dogma is conveniently laid out in easily digestible bites and attributed to none other than the Lincoln himself, unquestionably a liberal Democrat in today's eyes, as if he recited those in a speech somewhere. If the same lines were attributed to "Unknown" or "someone you never heard of" they'd be quickly dismissed as the political rhetoric it is.

But, if they were correctly, properly and accurately attributed to the Rev. William John Henry Boetcker, Director of the Citizens' Industrial Alliance, a pro-big business political action group, where the comments were made in the context of promoting big business, where big business is good, where the lower class should simply accept and know their place in society, there would be rebound to the quotes and they would not carry the same weight or message as desired.

One of my favorites is when conservatives try to convince people that they are thinking incorrectly when they use some variant of, "If you're not a liberal at twenty five you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at thirty five you have no brain," - Winston Churchill.

It's an amusing quote, but Winston Churchill never said that, or anything like it. It's particularly funny when you realize that Churchill was a conservative at 25 and became a liberal at 35, and then much later switched back again to being a conservative in his later years.

Another one of my favorites is when someone desperately wants to score a point by using a quote from the Bible, nearly always out of context, where they've resorted to, "You can't even argue with this so don't even try. I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion!" It's hilarious.

One thing Thomas Jefferson did, in fact say, is, "It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."

People who use false quotes, especially those who intentionally do this, should take heed in the words of William Shakespeare: "In a false quarrel there is no true valor." Meaning, even if you win, you lose.

People who actually believe the false quotes should beware the words of George Bernard Shaw: "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." (this one also applies to Sprinter maintenance)

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

 

[Maverick]

Another one of my favorites is when someone desperately wants to score a point by using a quote from the Bible, nearly always out of context, where they've resorted to, "You can't even argue with this so don't even try. I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion!"

Ah yes, the infamous "thou shall not judge" is a perfect example of that one.

Many people have been made famous by attributing quotes to that person....when they never said it, or they stole em from elsewhere. MLK comes to mind.

And no....the above is not intended to incite Biblical or racist discussion. Agreement on the first point, while color don't matter on the second point.

Clarification complete.

 

[louixo]

Holy poo poo Batman! When I was sent the original piece, quotes and all, I never thought it would be accepted in any way other than the humor that it was intended to be. I never imagined it would be cleverly hijacked to vent one's own view of anything. I'd seen those quotes attributed to Lincoln on the net before in other political subjects, but never thought to check them out. Why would I? I don't really care who wrote what, when, or where, as the author of this article really did use said quotes to get his point across, which in my view was nothing more, and is nothing more than H-U-M-O-R! It always amazes me, and amuses me how the obvious can turn into a debate that goes nowhere when anything political is broached.
Also I'm entertained at the direction it takes, though I don't understand how tempers get into it.
Whatever our man Turtle jumps in on, always seems to be well researched, though I've never taken the time to follow up and check out his sources. Again, why would I? Reading his comments and his command of the language, makes me wonder why he is not a columnist somewhere important. He should be. He writes better than most established regulars I read. I always learn something, though Turtle me lad, you do run on at times. I'll have to wait until I get more political humor, and see what it evokes.
P.S. Have any of you noticed the lack of Republican humor being bandied about? When Bush was in office I couldn't even find any Democrat humor. Goes with the territory I guess.

 

[Ragman]

Holy poo poo Batman! When I was sent the original piece, quotes and all, I never thought it would be accepted in any way other than the humor that it was intended to be. I never imagined it would be cleverly hijacked to vent one's own view of anything. I'd seen those quotes attributed to Lincoln on the net before in other political subjects, but never thought to check them out. Why would I? I don't really care who wrote what, when, or where, as the author of this article really did use said quotes to get his point across, which in my view was nothing more, and is nothing more than H-U-M-O-R! It always amazes me, and amuses me how the obvious can turn into a debate that goes nowhere when anything political is broached.
Also I'm entertained at the direction it takes, though I don't understand how tempers get into it.
Whatever our man Turtle jumps in on, always seems to be well researched, though I've never taken the time to follow up and check out his sources. Again, why would I? Reading his comments and his command of the language, makes me wonder why he is not a columnist somewhere important. He should be. He writes better than most established regulars I read. I always learn something, though Turtle me lad, you do run on at times. I'll have to wait until I get more political humor, and see what it evokes.
P.S. Have any of you noticed the lack of Republican humor being bandied about? When Bush was in office I couldn't even find any Democrat humor. Goes with the territory I guess.

You should have expected that. This is EO after all.

 

[Murraycroexp]

"38.2% of information touted as fact on the Internet is 82.3% false."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Maverick]

which in my view was nothing more, and is nothing more than H-U-M-O-R! It always amazes me, and amuses me how the obvious can turn into a debate that goes nowhere when anything political is broached.

That's because humor is spontaneous, and is often placed in more serious posts to lighten a mood....while negative things are inserted as opportunity to voice, or vent. Your post (as with most others) opens both doors, as should be expected on any forum.

Also I'm entertained at the direction it takes, though I don't understand how tempers get into it.

Don't really see tempers. But then, I'm not one of the those people who thinks raising your voice denotes shouting, either. Most are pretty thick skinned here, and the banter is of the usual suspects, including yours truly. I'm of the mind if you placed all these people in one room? The conversation would immediately turn to our profession, Expedite BS'rs....and that would be a great discussion. Only as the keg drained down, would you hear the cat fighting begin on all manner of issues. JMHO

It all comes down to this......

"Round Up The Usual Suspects!" (CASABLANCA) - YouTube

 

[moose]

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" - {if there's no bread}"Let them eat cake"
by far, the best ever political misquoted line in history.
Queen Marie Antoinette, never said that.
Let them eat cake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
fascinating!