Originally Posted By RoadTrip If you delete the "s" from "https" it will make the link an active link and will automatically display just a portion of it so it doesn't make the page impossibly wide. That is what I did here: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=jhglA8XmeJMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Obama+%22I+don%E2%80%99t+want+to+quell+anger.+I+think+people+are+right+to+be+angry.+I%E2%80%99m+angry.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=6ghX111gIK&sig=hnpgSvOojOzZ5p4qXQsG-Ie7EU4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8l63FxcPLAhWDLSYKHXBzDE4Q6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=Obama%20%22I%20don%E2%80%99t%20want%20to%20quell%20anger.%20I%20think%20people%20are%20right%20to%20be%20angry.%20I%E2%80%99m%20angry.%E2%80%9D&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?...&f=false</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Dabob sums up the context of Obama's quotes very well. His are basic campaign rhetoric. It's telling that for one example Spree needed to go with Obama gets why people are angry. As if that's any sort of outlandish thing at all. Compare this with Trump who tells his supporters at campaign rallies to "knock the crap" out of protesters and that he'll pay the legal fees of anyone who gets arrested for violence. Yeah, that's the same as what Obama said....
Originally Posted By Spree <<<Kind of a far cry from "I'd like to punch that guy in the face.">>> Yes, I suppose a punch to the face is a "far cry" from knives and guns.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Actual punches (like those thrown at Trump rallies) are indeed a far cry from metaphorical knives and guns, and my comparison was to Obama's comments on anger at AIG after the financial meltdown anyway. But don't let the facts bother you.
Originally Posted By Spree Which begs the question why did Obama choose such a violent metaphor to begin with? Surely the most eloquent speaker of the age could have found a better way to convey that message.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 More context: it wasn't even a public rally-type speech. It was to a group of fundraisers, an event where military or "battle" metaphors are common and have been for ages. The attempts to equate this with Trump inciting people to actual violence is lame, but the echo chamber continues.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Which begs the question why did Obama choose such a violent metaphor to begin with?<< Because it's a famous quote from a well-known movie that everyone would recognize and it's taken on a life of its own to mean "we have out-do our opponents? But let's not obfuscate the original issue. Let's stick with the original implication: that Obama and Trump's rhetoric is the same. If that's the case, it should be very easy to find evidence of Obama threatening physical violence on someone or encouraging physical violence on protesters or people of a different political persuasion. So please provide links to Obama calling for physical violence in the heat of the moment against political protesters.
Originally Posted By Spree google Obama violent quotes and you get 3,320,000 results. google Trump violent quotes and you get 2,720,000 results.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's called the echo chamber copying and pasting the same things over and over and over and over, and thinking that means something other than mindless copying and pasting. Strive for quality, not quantity. ecdc is right. Apples to apples or it doesn't mean squat.
Originally Posted By Spree One mans apple is another mans cashew. I thought we were talking about violent rhetoric. Didn't know there was a score of per-arranged hoops to jump thru in order for violent rhetoric to be violent rhetoric.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>google Obama violent quotes and you get 3,320,000 results.<< More obfuscation and avoidance. (And how many of those are violent quotes from conservatives threatening or wanting to harm Obama?) It is a tried-and-true logical fallacy to falsely equate two things as a way of deflecting attention from the issue. People do it constantly and think it's clever rhetoric (it's not). Heck, my kids do it when they're in trouble by saying their siblings get away with worse. It's a deflection tactic (which is why you haven't talked about Trump's violent statements at all, choosing instead to focus on Obama's fake one's). This thread is about Donald Trump encouraging violence at his rallies. So let's talk about Trump and his violent statements. Do you approve? Disapprove? Why? Why not?
Originally Posted By ecdc Here, let's look at some actual moments of how Trump handles protesters vs. how Obama handles them: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqsY33ggdk4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Y33ggdk4</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obama-hecklers_us_56e74fb9e4b0b25c91830ed0">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...91830ed0</a> So I'll ask again, Spree: Do you approve of Trump's language, saying he'd like to punch him in the face, that he wants security to throw protesters out in the cold without their coats, that he will cover assaulter's legal fees, that his supporters should "knock the crap" out of protesters?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Please DFTT. When someone repeatedly responds in the manner this person has you know they are just trolling.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***google Obama violent quotes and you get 3,320,000 results.*** ***google Trump violent quotes and you get 2,720,000 results.*** google Hitler violent quotes and you get 515,000 results. WOW - I had no idea Obama was more violent than Hitler! Thanks, Spree. Good to know.
Originally Posted By oc_dean <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJkg01N3Umw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...g01N3Umw</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^^ Pretty much sums up this scary bunch. Trump being King Monster! I'm pretty livid about this incident with the protester. With this ... I'm compelled to show off Trump and some of his closest mates .... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12670924_10208721099084617_8992442027557090891_n.jpg?oh=7038e58806485435cecf8e2e962ba9e8&oe=57974B17">http://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcd...57974B17</a> He's not interested in a democracy .... he's interesting in supporting and inciting violence! And as for every person who's supporting him ... They are all a few sandwiches shy of a picnic! I can understand people wanting to get behind someone who actually makes rational sense about standing for any particular core values. But what's the core value in exploiting Americans for their anger, and push it .. with that 78 year old asshole ... who I hope gets into so much legal trouble ... Maybe then something will click in that pee brain of his ..... that that was actually not a good thing to do ... let alone say "Next time we'll have to kill him" ... like it's the Roman Empire years!! What the F is wrong with some people?! Instead of moving forward .. humanity seems to be moving backwards! Probably doomed to repeat history! Imagine Trump with 'the button' next to him. He's just the type to start another world war!
Originally Posted By oc_dean * decades ago ... I just thought he was tacky with his "gold" colored world. * Thought he's such a smug prick .. with his line "You're fired" ... overplayed like that is a good thing in life! * As I followed the American Chopper tv show, Paul Sr. was building a motorcyle for Trump .. this at the time of the Sr. vs Jr. period. Very touchy, personal stuff being said on air .. and there's Trump saying to Paul Sr. "You should disinherit your son!" I thought that was icing on the cake to a man so greedy for power, money, and so pompous and arrogant ... * And the Cherry - running for president! Not even closely qualified. He's a child, a thug, a bully .. who uses his money and crooked skills to exploit anger, and is manifesting it with no regard. World Class Buffoon!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Didn't know there was a score of per-arranged hoops to jump thru in order for violent rhetoric to be violent rhetoric.> There's just one hoop. It has to actually BE violent rhetoric. Trump's obviously is. Just go to the videotape. The only examples you've come up with of Obama's were about fundraising, getting out to vote, and being ticked off about bankers who ruined the economy for everyone and still got big bonuses (and how we channel that "in a constructive way" - not calling for violence in any way). So all your examples are bogus and instantly debunked. I don't like to believe people are trolls, but if you can't come up with better than that, you run that risk.
