Fraud: Obama Exposed!

[Vanquish]

No, PChik, Not really. It's a personal attack on an issue that is outside of immediate or even second-hand problems facing the country.

You say it's relevant because it deals with a personal character element. That's casting a wide net that makes anything personal up for grabs.

Does the President have speech writers? Yep. Does he have to write everything that comes out of his office? No.

You can say, he's a liar and that lying should mean something. Welcome to do that if you wish. The problem is that for all your citations ...much like the little reading glasses that Beck wears on his show...they're fluff and conjecture that don't amount to much.

You've been Vanquished. QED.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, PChik, Not really. It's a personal attack on an issue that is outside of immediate or even second-hand problems facing the country.

You say it's relevant because it deals with a personal character element. That's casting a wide net that makes anything personal up for grabs.

Does the President have speech writers? Yep. Does he have to write everything that comes out of his office? No.

You can say, he's a liar and that lying should mean something. Welcome to do that if you wish. The problem is that for all your citations ...much like the little reading glasses that Beck wears on his show...they're fluff and conjecture that don't amount to much.

You've been Vanquished. QED.

Actually, the indictment to which you have opened the President is hardly 'fluff,' especially as it adds to the mountain of incompetence he has evinced.

BTW, that little "You've been Vanquished. QED." not only comes across as more than a little bit effete, but suggests that you are not very sure of your ability to close the argument, and fear allowing the reader to determine whether or not your argument is dispositive.

Just tryin' to be helpful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

not really, because it seems every month a new writer comes out and states "X exposed! X is a fraud"..

The sensationalism of the title is just dumb...

What!??
You understood the subject, and don't have a rebuttal to the exegesis???

I mean, outside of "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Not even "did, too!" "did, too!'

I'm so disappointed.


But to give props where due, I did get quite a chuckle out of your first post "it's too boring"
thing, and then the second,
"too sensationalist"....

I suppose you subscribe to Emerson's "Consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds."

i looked at the Poster of the thread and went from there. we have more important issues to deal with than this moronic nonsense. But please feel free to think its important.

"we have more important issues to deal with than this moronic nonsense."

This is the weakest defense of the President in the entire thread.

Even as a pale echo of the famous defense of Bill Clinton as 'it's just a private affair.'


Still waiting for some defender to provide a sample of the President's own writing that provides the glow of the writing in "Dreams." That might be a rebuttal!

 

[Charles_Main]

It doesn't matter.
If Obama were to be discovered today to be ineligible by birth, I doubt he would be removed as president. His supporters would counter that, well George Washington wasn't a US citizen either when he was born, or somesuch.
Yes of course he is a fraud. Yes of course he is a liar. Yes of course he was put in office by powerful interests that vilify everyone else.
But so what?

If he was found to be ineligible now, it would create a big mess. The Right would argue effectively that every law he has signed is invalid. Yep it would be a serious mess.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I think it obvious, given his incoherence when lacking a script in front of him, that he had a lot of help with that book. If you look at that Snopes.com link above, you can see the help wasn't really all that great.

Trying to distill the text editing by Ayers vs Obama's own views is as pointless as trying to guess the contributions of Rudolf Hess to Mein Kampf. The ideas contained therein are a lot more important, they are truly his ideas, and they give reason for intense concern.

 

[Greenbeard]

So, the point here seems to be:

1. Obama's book is well-written.

2. I don't believe Obama can write that well because, well...I just don't believe it and i base that on a paper he allegedly wrote when he was 20.

3. Therefore, Bill Ayers wrote the book.

Hey, that makes perfect sense!

Actually, Kenyan Marxists working for ACORN wrote those books. It's a widely believed fact--even professionals think so!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

As others said, a Ghost wouldn't be that surprising. PC, has anyone done an analysis of Ayers assorted writings in comparisonto Dreams or Audacity? That'd be the real result to post.

Most political figures have Ghosts, or at the very least very very involved "editors". The only recent political figure I could believe wrote his own books would be Newt, and I'd bet even his more political stuff was heavily rewritten.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Political Chic:
I'm still trying to understand Obama's justification of the health care bill, given his views on
1. "consensus" while the health bill was pushed despited a huge dissenting minority that considered major parts to be unconstitutional
2. "pro-choice" in not allowing any introduction of restriction or regulation on abortion, but actively supporting dependence on government to regulate health care.

The most I can figure is that the health care bill "saved lives" on an emergency basis for the short term (though it did not include coverage for all people equally, and it is not guaranteed to provide for the long term). "Saving lives" might serve as justification for passing it, but then that contradicts arguments against "pro-life legislation as saving lives" at the expense of freedom.

So that is where I believe these justications will lead to defeat of the whole agenda as pushing a political party bias and not a consistent concept in all cases!

If I can figure out that much, maybe I will consider looking at more.
But I am still stuck at square one, trying to figure out his definition of consensus!

Yours truly,
Emily

(Also if Obama violated Indonesia laws on only citizens having access to public schools, since he claims U.S. citizenship, doesn't he have a conflict in enforcing any immigration laws in the U.S. that would penalize immigrants who do the same thing he did?)

I am still hoping he will launch some kind of microlending program to implement one idea for reform.

I would recommend lending against the debts already owed to the taxpayers for corporate or govt corruption, and either require the wrongdoers to pay it back if they wish to continue their rights to operate under law, or sell the shares in projects or property (used to back the notes) to the citizens who do invest the labor or money to pay off those debts.

 

[EriktheRed]

Somehow i pegged Polichic as being smarter than this, but this thread proves otherwise.

 

[gautama]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So sorry, but there are topics and subjects that require a bit more in the way of cognizence in order for same to pique one's interest.

I fully understand your inability to get into this question.

not really, because it seems every month a new writer comes out and states "X exposed! X is a fraud"..

The sensationalism of the title is just dumb...

Shitball,

Your signature statement:

"There is a 100 billion galaxies out there, with a 100 billion stars in in each. You and your agenda are meaningless."

By that measure Hitler's Horrendous Nazi Regime is to be ignored.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow i pegged Polichic as being smarter than this, but this thread proves otherwise.

And,you see, that's where we differ....I never had that opinion of you.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't matter.
If Obama were to be discovered today to be ineligible by birth, I doubt he would be removed as president. His supporters would counter that, well George Washington wasn't a US citizen either when he was born, or somesuch.
Yes of course he is a fraud. Yes of course he is a liar. Yes of course he was put in office by powerful interests that vilify everyone else.
But so what?

If he was found to be ineligible now, it would create a big mess. The Right would argue effectively that every law he has signed is invalid. Yep it would be a serious mess.

I don't think it would change anything. Anyone with a brain would argue that every piece of legislation Obama signed and every presidential act was invalid. Because they would be invalid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As others said, a Ghost wouldn't be that surprising. PC, has anyone done an analysis of Ayers assorted writings in comparisonto Dreams or Audacity? That'd be the real result to post.

Most political figures have Ghosts, or at the very least very very involved "editors". The only recent political figure I could believe wrote his own books would be Newt, and I'd bet even his more political stuff was heavily rewritten.

Yes...

1. Now, Bill Ayers is an author of some renown. His book, “Fugitive Days,” considering his eventful life, a compelling and well written book. I found patterns and echoes when I compared his book with “Dreams.”

a. Early on, in his book, Ayres writes “The confrontation in the Fishbowl flowed like a swollen river into the teach-in, carrying me along the cascading waters from room to room, hall to hall, bouncing off boulders.”

b. From “Dreams:” “I heard all our voices begin to run together, the sound of three generations tumbling over each other like the currents of a slow-moving stream, my questions like rocks roiling the water, the breaks in memory separating the currents. . . .”

2. First, not the similarity of the imagery, flowing water broken by rocks or boulders…. Then, the structure: each sentence begins with a standard word phrase embellished by a series of participles such as “tumbling, roiling, separating,” in one, versus “carrying, bouncing” in the other.

a. It is of note that Ayers spent time as a merchant seaman.

b. Another Hyde Park radical, Rashid Kalidi, in his book "Resurrecting Empire," "There are many people without whose support and assistance I could not have written this book, or written it in the way that it was written," Khalidi writes. "First, chronologically, and in other ways, comes Bill Ayers." Newly found article confirms Obama 'Dreams' fraud
The three traveled in the same circles. What conclusion do you draw?

c. In fact, no detail by itself proves Ayers' involvement, but the cumulative details overwhelm the open-minded.

I think you will find more in the source of the above, the link to the lecture is in the OP. I think you might find it worth an hour of your time.



"Most political figures have Ghosts,.."
Very true.
I believe that CG pointed out earlier that JFK got a Pulitzer for a book written by Sorensen.
The salient point here, is that the writer was a known and unrepentant terrorist, and the Cashill thesis links him firmly to our President.

 

[8537]

"ConservativeAmerican.org" mentally masturbating with WorldNutDaily?

It's a perfect rightwing echo chamber.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"ConservativeAmerican.org" mentally masturbating with WorldNutDaily?

It's a perfect rightwing echo chamber.

When one can't disput the substance, claim not to accept the source.

Weak.

 

[8537]

"ConservativeAmerican.org" mentally masturbating with WorldNutDaily?

It's a perfect rightwing echo chamber.

When one can't disput the substance, claim not to accept the source.

Weak.

Well, the "sources" are a wingnut blog and a site associated with a wide-range of far-right conspiracy theories - and they are supposed to gain credibility by referencing...each other?

We call that a circle jerk.

 

[Trajan]

snopes.com: Barack Obama in His Own Words

My compliments!
You were the first one from the gauche side of the aisle to undertake a defense of our President.

I wonder if the reason is that Cashill's argument is so overwhelming that any defense is impossible...

...or could it be that the object of the OP has proven to be so underwhelming, himself, that those who formerly supported him have abandoned the effort.

In either case, had you read the link that you provided, you would- probably - have realized that it did not pertain to the thesis put forth by Jack Cashill.

And a convincing argument it is!

But...just the same, Bravo for standing up for your hero!

Its the Big Lie PC and you know how that works.

 

[Dot Com]

"ConservativeAmerican.org" mentally masturbating with WorldNutDaily?

It's a perfect rightwing echo chamber.

Agreed. Wasn't this talked to death on am radio & RuperTV > year ago anyway? ZZZzzz

 

[PoliticalChic]

"ConservativeAmerican.org" mentally masturbating with WorldNutDaily?

It's a perfect rightwing echo chamber.

When one can't disput the substance, claim not to accept the source.

Weak.

Well, the "sources" are a wingnut blog and a site associated with a wide-range of far-right conspiracy theories - and they are supposed to gain credibility by referencing...each other?

We call that a circle jerk.

The regular sexual references,...I hate to descend into psychbabble, but is there some sort of inadequecy showing up?

And, I notice that you still haven't rebutted any point.

I suggest you view the vid in the link...with an open mind.

 

[8537]

And, I notice that you still haven't rebutted any point.

I rebutted your point in my first couple posts. There's nothing left to do but embarrass people for making stupid claims.