Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

One observer’s take on Obama’s negotiating style

February 20th, 2014 by Vader

I have no idea if this is true or not, but Putin supposedly likened negotiating with Obama to playing chess with a pigeon: first, the pigeon knocks all the pieces over, then it, ahem, “poops” on the board, then it struts around as if it won.

– “Laurie”

Comments (9)
Filed under: There are monkey-boys in the facility | Tags: , , ,
February 20th, 2014 13:17:42
9 comments

Zen
February 20, 2014

Alas, it was not to be be. Snopes rains on our parade again.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/pigeonchess.asp


Bookslinger
February 20, 2014

I would not put it past Vlad to have picked up the aphorism and applied it to Obama.

All the Snopes article does is explain that the imagery pre-existed Obama’s presidency, not that Putin couldn’t have said it.


Vader
February 20, 2014

Perhaps Vlad didn’t pick it up.

But from everything I’ve seen reported in the press, it’s a perfectly apt description of Obama’s negotiating style, which is probably why it has become urban legend.


Dan R.
February 20, 2014

Fake but accurate.


Zen
February 20, 2014

There needs to be a word for things that are wrong in detail, but right in spirit.

For instance, the idea that we only use 10% of our brains, is factually incorrect. But we know, we live so far below our potential, that 10% is probably generous.


Adam G.
February 20, 2014

Surely there’s a German word for it.

Inkorrectentruhaft or something.


Bookslinger
February 20, 2014

The folks who run Snopes are on the record as financially and otherwise supporting left wing candidates and causes. Therefore, I think their information needs to be viewed with a touch of scepticism. Even if their assertions are correct (they do usually reference sources), their sources may themselves be inaccurate or corrupt. So-called news and “fact” sources can be truthful but misleading by leaving out important information, or by connecting the points in misleading ways.


Bookslinger
February 20, 2014

Matt Drudge sometimes does a similar slant with the headlines he writes.

“Cops do X after man does Y”. The implication is that the cops did X _because_ the man did Y, which may not be the case. The statement may be literally true, in that action Y preceeded action X. But that does not mean that Y prompted or provoked X.


Zen
February 21, 2014

How about, pseudofact.
I considered fauxfact, but that was just opening the network to disproportionate mockery.

But regardless of Snopes, I can’t find any record of Putin saying that… however accurate it might be.

Leave a Reply