Newsweek Article Critical of Obama

[g5000]

Here's the thing.

The people who created the mass emails saying this was from Newsweek (or the Washington Post) knew deep down inside such a piece would only be read and swallowed if it was attributed to Newsweek or the WP. They knew if its source was revealed to be to some hack faux right winger from American Thinker, it would be read with that heavily biased source in mind.

So they lied. Which means we are dealing with people who have ZERO integrity.

You may be right. But the reasoning behind it is that those who write everything off because it is from one source or the another are acting like racists, profiling if you will. The reality of the situation is that it should not matter where it was from the article should stand for itself. But identity politics will have none of that. So although it is wrong that they would do so I can understand why.

The reasoning is that they are liars and have been outed as liars, and so they double down instead of trying to get their integrity back.

The faux right wing which is destroying the GOP is a pack of psychopaths, liars, hypocrites, and bigots.

All I see from them is wishful thinking claims which are accepted at face value. The rubes believe their shit because it aligns with their beliefs.

I mean. Come on. How hard is it to check to see if the article was actually in Newsweek? How retarded do you have to be to just copy and paste something you got in your mail or saw on the yellow web sites without doing the most basic fact checking first?

This isn't a one time thing. This has been happening on nearly a daily basis by dozens of faux right wing rubes for well over a year now. We are talking about a serious dive into the single digit IQ range.

Critical thinking is alien technology to the rubes.

And for pointing out the TRUTH, I get labeled as left wing. That says A LOT about the state of affairs on the faux right these days. Truth and honesty and integrity are "left wing". Very revealing.

It is time to take out the trash. Unless you LIKE the party being infected by these fucking assholes.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an author's update at the end of the article, which is an American Thinker article, not that it matters.

Update:

Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:

1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?

2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:

"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"

3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.


Read more: Articles: Obama: The Affirmative Action President
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Freewill]

Here's the thing.

The people who created the mass emails saying this was from Newsweek (or the Washington Post) knew deep down inside such a piece would only be read and swallowed if it was attributed to Newsweek or the WP. They knew if its source was revealed to be to some hack faux right winger from American Thinker, it would be read with that heavily biased source in mind.

So they lied. Which means we are dealing with people who have ZERO integrity.

You may be right. But the reasoning behind it is that those who write everything off because it is from one source or the another are acting like racists, profiling if you will. The reality of the situation is that it should not matter where it was from the article should stand for itself. But identity politics will have none of that. So although it is wrong that they would do so I can understand why.

The reasoning is that they are liars and have been outed as liars, and so they double down instead of trying to get their integrity back.

The faux right wing which is destroying the GOP is a pack of psychopaths, liars, hypocrites, and bigots.

All I see from them is wishful thinking claims which are accepted at face value. The rubes believe their shit because it aligns with their beliefs.

I mean. Come on. How hard is it to check to see if the article was actually in Newsweek? How retarded do you have to be to just copy and paste something you got in your mail or saw on the yellow web sites without doing the most basic fact checking first?

This isn't a one time thing. This has been happening on nearly a daily basis by dozens of faux right wing rubes for well over a year now. We are talking about a serious dive into the single digit IQ range.

Critical thinking is alien technology to the rubes.

And for pointing out the TRUTH, I get labeled as left wing. That says A LOT about the state of affairs on the faux right these days. Truth and honesty and integrity are "left wing". Very revealing.

It is time to take out the trash. Unless you LIKE the party being infected by these fucking assholes.

Oh please with the BS outrage. I thought you smarter then to post such BS but you are really letting me down. What f..cking difference does it make what source he contributed to? Does it change the article at all? Certainly both sides get their facts wrong at times and something down right put a slant on them that can only be looked at as lies. But the key here is that it is both sides. And for the most part the most blantent of lies usually come from the left wing, i.e. Dan Rather.

The Republican party is not destroyed because Obama was elected twice first because the MSM and his campaign ran one of the dirtiest campaigns I can remember and second and mostly because of democrat/liberal white guilt.

Republicans still own state governments, still own the House and if God be good will take back the Senate in 2014.

You get labeled as a left winger because you post BS such as you have in this thread.

 

[healthmyths]

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist – opinion writer)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking:how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme,he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from theracist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

What an indictment! But this writer need ONLY look to his EDITOR!!!

Who said the following:

When it came to Bush:
Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this hardened, grizzled NewsWeek editor's response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

 

[g5000]

You may be right. But the reasoning behind it is that those who write everything off because it is from one source or the another are acting like racists, profiling if you will. The reality of the situation is that it should not matter where it was from the article should stand for itself. But identity politics will have none of that. So although it is wrong that they would do so I can understand why.

The reasoning is that they are liars and have been outed as liars, and so they double down instead of trying to get their integrity back.

The faux right wing which is destroying the GOP is a pack of psychopaths, liars, hypocrites, and bigots.

All I see from them is wishful thinking claims which are accepted at face value. The rubes believe their shit because it aligns with their beliefs.

I mean. Come on. How hard is it to check to see if the article was actually in Newsweek? How retarded do you have to be to just copy and paste something you got in your mail or saw on the yellow web sites without doing the most basic fact checking first?

This isn't a one time thing. This has been happening on nearly a daily basis by dozens of faux right wing rubes for well over a year now. We are talking about a serious dive into the single digit IQ range.

Critical thinking is alien technology to the rubes.

And for pointing out the TRUTH, I get labeled as left wing. That says A LOT about the state of affairs on the faux right these days. Truth and honesty and integrity are "left wing". Very revealing.

It is time to take out the trash. Unless you LIKE the party being infected by these fucking assholes.

Oh please with the BS outrage. I thought you smarter then to post such BS but you are really letting me down. What f..cking difference does it make what source he contributed to? Does it change the article at all? Certainly both sides get their facts wrong at times and something down right put a slant on them that can only be looked at as lies. But the key here is that it is both sides. And for the most part the most blantent of lies usually come from the left wing, i.e. Dan Rather.

The Republican party is not destroyed because Obama was elected twice first because the MSM and his campaign ran one of the dirtiest campaigns I can remember and second and mostly because of democrat/liberal white guilt.

Republicans still own state governments, still own the House and if God be good will take back the Senate in 2014.

You get labeled as a left winger because you post BS such as you have in this thread.

The integrity of the article was destroyed. It is an OPINION piece. Much of which I actually happen agree with.

But just because you agree with something does not mean you should blow your integrity to pieces by condoning the lies and dishonesty.

There is a much more important principle involved. I am sorry you are so far gone you don't even notice and cannot understand.

Obama and the liberals will not be defeated by dishonesty. It is time to wake up to this fact.

edited to add: Not only that, look at quickly many on the right are quick to dismiss an article and not even read it by saying, "HUFFPO!". Many on the left dismiss an article out of hand if it comes from Fox News. But rather than fix the problem with integrity all of these outlets have, we have some asshole resorting to changing the purported source of the article. That is a continuation of moving in the WRONG direction. Doubling down on their dishonesty. Someone made a CONSCIOUS DECISION to lie.

 

[g5000]

Here's a clue, folks.

If you get a mass email saying something was posted on a well known site, and it does not have a link to that site, you MIGHT want to fact check it.

Someone DELIBERATELY lied to you. That should piss you off. Stop being an apologist for the fuckheads who lie to you. Otherwise, you deserve to be lied to.

 

[EriktheRed]

Since the article was posted in 2011, I'm guessing this guy also thought the Prez was gonna lose, too.

That's interesting since he mentions 2012 in the article.

No, he doesn't and the date of the article is August 18, 2011.


Edit:

I just noticed that healthmyths quoted the whole piece from the OP and it does actually mention it. Thing is, though, at this link...


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html


...the line about his 2012 speeches being the same as his 2008 speeches isn't there.

Edit 2:

It's this line here that appears to have been added to it:

(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

 

[Two Thumbs]

You want names?

USMB members..............

G5000
Mac
Horstysir
MaBelle
Amelia

To name a few.

Go ahead...admit failure.

I admit a clear win-win!!

I asked for names and you named them; Win
G5000 and Mac are FAR from the right. Mac is one of the few actual middlemen and G5 is a liber.; Win


Go ahead and ask me to list some non-nutter leftist.

gahead, gahead

I am an old school conservative, idiot.

You sound like a liber to me.

just sayin

Why'd you toss in "idiot"? Not like I've gone toe ta toe with you over anything.