Fraud: Obama Exposed!

[Dot Com]

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

Why would you do that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't presented a case, a rebuttal is not necessary.

Pointing to the bad penmanship on a college paper and comparing it to an EDITED, PROOF-READ piece of Literature is stupid. There's no more eloquent word to describe your case than STUPID.

Eloquent indeed. Terrific use of vocabulary!
Denial is not rebuttal.


The item to which you purposely refer as "a college paper" has been clearly identified as a published article in a well-known college newspaper, the Columbia Sundial, the finest college in the nation- at least- under Obama's byline.
It's evident that it is to your advantage to suggest that it was merely a homework assignment of some sort, on which one might suppose limited efforts would be applied...

This is not the case. The student in question had aspirations, high aspirations, and his article would be viewed by thousands, and as a reference of his views for years to come.

Yet you suggest he put no efforts into it?

Hogwash. It represented his abiltiy.


Don't forget, no one 'assigns' articles in the newspaper: one seeks the right to write same.
Here is the original article:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

I challenge you to read it, and to then state it represents the writer that would produce "Dreams."
The terms of acclaim are clearly stated earlier in this thread.

Thence, we can conjecture as to the author.

You might consider not responding at all if you simply intend to repeat the vapid denial that no case has been made, as Thing 1 and Thing 2 have done repeatedly.
I get it: that's the best argument your side has.

But if you have something new to bring to the table, by all means, bring it.

So you're presuming that a typo by Obama in College, and his EDITOR missing it, means that since the Editor of his new book was better and didn't miss shit, that that should lead people to believe (in conjunction with your other childish wild-eyed non-evidences) that he couldn't have written it? Really? REALLY?

Based on your dismissal, I'm going to suggest that you have limited your reading so much so that you are unable to discern the difference between pedestrian writing and really good writing.

This is consistent with your inablity to discern a reputable candidate for the presidency and Barack Obama.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It really isn't that bad. Very asinine and sophomoric. Reading it 20 years later must be a huge embarrassment. The grammar isn't that bad. The prose flows quite well. It is substantially better than 95% of similar material being printed at the time. I remember this kind of article, and for its kind it is a marvel of good sense.
He has the same kind of mistake I like, which is sentences that go on forever, punctuated by commas as a sign it is time to take a breath, rather than the commas having any gramatical function. And he has a fondness for rubber stamp prose. That being a particular problem of the more doctrinare kind of socialist.
I do think that arguing over the ghost is less interesting than what is undeniably him. First the idolization of a father that abandoned him and the rejection of the parent that nurtured and cared for him. Second, the adherence to an ideology that was passe by the time he was old enough to embrace it, and is idiotic on its face. This is what should worry you.

 

[8537]

Here is a perfect example of the "close your eyes, ball your little fists up and cover your ears, lie on your back and kick your little feet, while yelling 'is not, is not,'" post.

The thread has shown examples of his wring, and your post is, to use Jullian's term, 'fantasy.'

No, this thread has shown quotes alleged to be from Obama's "wring".

 

[Cal]

Consider the following as an intellectual endeavor: how does a mediocre writer produce a graceful, lyrical, poetic, best-ever memoir....

Or does he? Jack Cashill reveals the impossibility of such. Agree or not, it is more than passing interesting.

1. “Dream From My Father” was designed not to make Obama President of the United States, but rather to make Obama the mayor of Chicago, a position that would have done Ayers a world of good.

2. Bill Ayers is an extremely talented writer. The questions, then, are who wrote the book, and is the story true?

3. Now then, do we find the literary background or predicate for the for the kind of grace and style of “Dreams” in prior samples of Obama’s work? Is there evidence of a dedication to the craft that might produce “Dreams”?

a. In “The Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell clearly defines the elements of success in a given field as a combination of talent and practice, constant practice, and not a particularly high I.Q. He calls it the “Ten Thousand Hour Rule,” and gives many examples such as the Beatles, Charlie Parker, Mozart, Bill Gates, and himself, a professional writer.

b. Christopher Hitchens, in his memoir, speaks of constant writing to hone his talent.

c. Frank Marshall Davis wrote about his efforts to improve as a writer, and his ‘journalitis”

4. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has only one mention that encompasses his attempts at writing in “Dreams,” ‘I made some journal entries and wrote some very bad poetry.’ That’s it.

5. Seeing samples of his writing prior to “Dreams,” I found an article that he wrote for the Columbia Sundial as a 23-year-old senior, in 1983. The article was called “Breaking the War Mentality,” and in the 1800 word essay there were five sentences in which the noun, the subject of the sentence, didn’t agree with the verb.

a. One example: “The very real ADVANTAGES of concentrating on a single issue IS leading the national freeze movement to challenge individual missile systems while continuing the broader campaign.” Of course, it should read “The very real advantages …ARE,” and one wonders about the structure of a sentence in which ‘advantages’ are ‘leading.’

b. This is a senior at America’s best college, one who spent the prior eight years in Hawaii’s best prep school. One would expect his writing skills at this point to be at 90% of the best it would ever be!

6. In 1988, we find a second example of his writing, an article called “Why Organize?” appearing in a book called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.” Once again, nouns and subjects which don’t agree, awkward, disjointed sentences, leaden rather than flowing.

a. An example” “Facing these realities, at least three major strands of earlier movements are apparent.” Note, “Facing these realities…” modifies nothing. And ‘strands’ do not ‘face reality.’

b. It is interesting that there seems to be only one copy of the book, by a sitting President, and the asking price is $150. Someone knows what they have there.

7. In 1990, he wrote an unsigned casenote at Harvard, “Suits by a fetus against third parties provide an additional deterrent to unwanted intrusions on a woman’s bodily integrity.” You be the judge, stylistically smooth and graceful, or awkward and leaden?

a. Note that it states that if an unwanted child could sue its mother, or the abortionist, it would restrict the ability of the mother to kill an unwanted child.

b. Curious, also, in that it represents the only time in recent history that Democrats have not chosen to expand tort rights, in this case, to the unborn.

c. 1990 was the same year that Mr. Obama was honored with the affirmative action position of president of the Harvard Law Review.

8. As a result of the story of his accession to presidency of the Harvard Law Review, a NY literary agent, Jane Dystel, gets him to write a proposal for a book, which she takes to Simon and Schuster. The result is a $125,000 advance, with an agreement to finish the book in 18 months.
a. But, since Obama is not a writer, he does what people always do when faced with a challenge they can’t accomplish: he procrastinates. He takes on various responsibilities, other than the writing.

b. But, in 1995, after Simon and Schuster cancels his contract, and Dystel manages to get him a smaller contract, and with no time on his schedule, he manages to sit down and write a 440-page masterpiece, that Time magazine calls “the best written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The Fresh Face - TIME

c. “…distinguished intellectual historian James Kloppenberg, chair of the Harvard history department. Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition… “the most substantial books written by anyone elected President of the United States since Woodrow Wilson.” Barack Obama, Intellectual - PageView - The Chronicle of Higher Education

d. Michiko Kakutani, the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for The New York Times, described it as "the most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president." The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/books/19read.html?_r=1&hp.

The above from “Deconstructing Obama,” by Jack Cashill
Lecture can be found at Search - C-SPAN Video Library


So, do we agree? The authorship is fraudulent, as is his presidency.

You should write for WorldNetDaily :].

 

[Dot Com]

Here is a perfect example of the "close your eyes, ball your little fists up and cover your ears, lie on your back and kick your little feet, while yelling 'is not, is not,'" post.

The thread has shown examples of his wring, and your post is, to use Jullian's term, 'fantasy.'

No, this thread has shown quotes alleged to be from Obama's "wring".

BUHAHA

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is a perfect example of the "close your eyes, ball your little fists up and cover your ears, lie on your back and kick your little feet, while yelling 'is not, is not,'" post.

The thread has shown examples of his wring, and your post is, to use Jullian's term, 'fantasy.'

No, this thread has shown quotes alleged to be from Obama's "wring".

Now, you know that is not true...

you shouldn't allow your political predilections stand between you and honesty.

This destroys any honest use of 'alleged':

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Politicalchic just hates Obama unless she really cares that much about the literary arts

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Politicalchic just hates Obama unless she really cares that much about the literary arts

I don't hate anyone.

I'm simply documenting one more aspect of this empty suit that made and makes him an exceptionally poor choice for the position he holds.

In the past I have suggested that he might be better suited for, say...Deputy Undersectretary of Education.

It seems that more and more folks agree with this appraisal.

I admit to a Manichean outlook, which may or may not be perfect for political perspective, but I have no problem leaving that consideration to you...meaning, if you feel that oratorical ability and terrific smile gives one the credentials to be President of the United States...well, De gustibus non est disputandum.

Now, it seems that your post is an attempt to belittle the significance of the OP, and as such defines you as having all the depth of wallpaper.

Put a little effort into it!

 

[8537]

Here is a perfect example of the "close your eyes, ball your little fists up and cover your ears, lie on your back and kick your little feet, while yelling 'is not, is not,'" post.

The thread has shown examples of his wring, and your post is, to use Jullian's term, 'fantasy.'

No, this thread has shown quotes alleged to be from Obama's "wring".

Now, you know that is not true...

you shouldn't allow your political predilections stand between you and honesty.

This destroys any honest use of 'alleged':

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

Well yes, except - that one's well written and itsn't filled with the aforementioned typos. Heck, that one sounds like something a person who wrote The Audacity of Hope might have written when s/he was a young pup.

 

[8537]

Harper Lee's first literary effort was a great example of poorly written first attempts, strengthening Political Chic's argument (afterall, she hadn't written 10,000 others before!).

It's called To Kill a Mockingbird. Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Dream From My Father” was designed not to make Obama President of the United States, but rather to make Obama the mayor of Chicago, a position that would have done Ayers a world of good.

2. Bill Ayers is an extremely talented writer. The questions, then, are who wrote the book, and is the story true? (wow, this is what passes as logic? So because A. Ayers is a good writer, and B. Obama being Mayor may benefit Ayers...that....as point #2.......jumps the gun to questioning "who wrote the book? Just..wow.)

3. Now then, do we find the literary background or predicate for the for the kind of grace and style of “Dreams” in prior samples of Obama’s work? Is there evidence of a dedication to the craft that might produce “Dreams”? (yes. You already know that he was a writer in College. That's enough to start.)

a. In “The Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell clearly defines the elements of success in a given field as a combination of talent and practice, constant practice, and not a particularly high I.Q. He calls it the “Ten Thousand Hour Rule,” and gives many examples such as the Beatles, Charlie Parker, Mozart, Bill Gates, and himself, a professional writer. (then again, some people are born with this thing called NATURAL TALENT. You can read many books on the same. Another non-point that needed no rebuttal to the logical mind)

b. Christopher Hitchens, in his memoir, speaks of constant writing to hone his talent. (Kobe Bryant practices countless hours to be a great basketball player. Allen Iverson, a proven great scorer.....boasts of his natural talent and needing no practice. Again, when there exists both natural and obsessively practiced Talents, (plus, dont forget........the median which is "some" of each)....then, again I say, you have no point here to support any conclusion).

c. Frank Marshall Davis wrote about his efforts to improve as a writer, and his ‘journalitis” (,--meaningless!)

4. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has only one mention that encompasses his attempts at writing in “Dreams,” ‘I made some journal entries and wrote some very bad poetry.’ That’s it. (so now, to jump to your irrational conclusion.....we get to both exclude his college writing as evidence he's made attempts at writing......while alos using it to discredit his penmanship? good lead. not.)

5. Seeing samples of his writing prior to “Dreams,” (you JUST SAID IN #4 that he probably hasn't worked on his writing. Get a clue.)I found an article that he wrote for the Columbia Sundial as a 23-year-old senior, in 1983. The article was called “Breaking the War Mentality,” and in the 1800 word essay there were five sentences in which the noun, the subject of the sentence, didn’t agree with the verb.

a. One example: “The very real ADVANTAGES of concentrating on a single issue IS leading the national freeze movement to challenge individual missile systems while continuing the broader campaign.” Of course, it should read “The very real advantages …ARE,” and one wonders about the structure of a sentence in which ‘advantages’ are ‘leading.’

b. This is a senior at America’s best college, one who spent the prior eight years in Hawaii’s best prep school. One would expect his writing skills at this point to be at 90% of the best it would ever be!

6. In 1988, we find a second example of his writing(in other words, he continued writing.....so, works on his writing), an article called “Why Organize?” appearing in a book called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.” Once again, nouns and subjects which don’t agree, awkward, disjointed sentences, leaden rather than flowing.


this shit is too corny for words.

I like it!
A much better job than most.

But, alas, a failure nonetheless.

#2 is false, as the comparison of writing style, experience, background all suggest Ayers. Not the fact that he is a good writer.

#3 "You already know that he was a writer in College"
On the contrary, he was a plodder in college...glad you dropped 'alleged'...his samples show that. And, that is the point: one with his ability could not write the subject in question.

3a-b. Either you didn't read carefully,or you misunderstand Gladwell's premise. Ability alone won't do the trick. And your basketball analogy? Do you seriously contend that the individual you name didn't spend every adolescent day on the court?

Review the '10000 hour rule.'

4. " irrational conclusion.....we get to both exclude his college writing as evidence he's made attempts at writing......while alos using it to discredit his penmanship? good lead. not."
Difficult to keep up with your fallacies.
irrational conclusion...begs the question.
penmanship? Nothing shows a lost debating position more clearly than inventing a defense against a charge that hasn't been made.
Do you know what 'penmanship' means?
Your best course of action would be to eithe claim you don't know what penmanship means, or that the dog ate your homework.

The fact is that his article in the Sundial proves that he isn't an accomplished writer, nor has he spent the required '10,000 hours' working at it.

5. "JUST SAID IN #4 that he probably hasn't worked on his writing. Get a clue"
So, your fall back position is that you suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder.
So sad.
You don't get to argue against just half of the premise....work at his craft means....right, the 10,000 hour rule. Not the day and a half on the stated article.
Further, there is the example of the caselaw note, and the "“Why Organize?” appearing in a book called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.” Once again, nouns and subjects which don’t agree, awkward, disjointed sentences, leaden rather than flowing."


And then you gave up?

But, not a bad attempt.
I'm sure it is enough for entry into the "Obama Junior Rangers and Community Organizers" club!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Harper Lee's first literary effort was a great example of poorly written first attempts, strengthening Political Chic's argument (afterall, she hadn't written 10,000 others before!).

It's called To Kill a Mockingbird. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Rather, the question is whether or not you've heard of Harper Lee...or at least of her use of the "10,000 hour rule" to better her craft?

In order to concentrate on writing, Harper Lee gave up her position with the airline and moved into a cold-water apartment with makeshift furniture. Her father's sudden illness forced her to divide her time between New York and Monroeville, a practice she has continued.

In 1957 Miss Lee submitted the manuscript of her novel to the J. B. Lippincott Company. She was told that her novel consisted of a series of short stories strung together, and she was urged to rewrite it. For the next two and a half years she reworked the manuscript with the help of her editor, Tay Hohoff, and in 1960 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was published, her only published book. In 1961 she had two articles published: "Love - In Other Words" in Vogue, and "Christmas To Me" in McCall's. "Christmas To Me" is the story of Harper Lee receiving the gift of a year's time for writing from friends. "When Children Discover America" was published in McCall's in 1965.
Author Profile: Harper Lee

You've done just as poor a job in vetting your 'example' as in vetting the candidate Obama.

Would you like to reference cave drawings, next?

 

[8537]

Harper Lee's first literary effort was a great example of poorly written first attempts, strengthening Political Chic's argument (afterall, she hadn't written 10,000 others before!).

It's called To Kill a Mockingbird. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Rather, the question is whether or not you've heard of Harper Lee...or at least of her use of the "10,000 hour rule" to better her craft?

I'm familiar with Harper Lee, thanks.

In order to concentrate on writing, Harper Lee gave up her position with the airline and moved into a cold-water apartment with makeshift furniture. Her father's sudden illness forced her to divide her time between New York and Monroeville, a practice she has continued.

hmm..10,000 hours? Methinks not. You should consult Mr. Gladwell.

In 1957 Miss Lee submitted the manuscript of her novel to the J. B. Lippincott Company. She was told that her novel consisted of a series of short stories strung together, and she was urged to rewrite it. For the next two and a half years she reworked the manuscript with the help of her editor, Tay Hohoff, and in 1960 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was published, her only published book. In 1961 she had two articles published: "Love - In Other Words" in Vogue, and "Christmas To Me" in McCall's. "Christmas To Me" is the story of Harper Lee receiving the gift of a year's time for writing from friends. "When Children Discover America" was published in McCall's in 1965.
Author Profile: Harper Lee

indeed! let's see...2000 hours per year for 2.5 years = 5,000 hours.

You think Obama spent much time writing?

You've done just as poor a job in vetting your 'example' as in vetting the candidate Obama.

Would you like to reference cave drawings, next?[/QUOTE]

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Politicalchic just hates Obama unless she really cares that much about the literary arts

I don't hate anyone.

I'm simply documenting one more aspect of this empty suit that made and makes him an exceptionally poor choice for the position he holds.

In the past I have suggested that he might be better suited for, say...Deputy Undersectretary of Education.

It seems that more and more folks agree with this appraisal.

I admit to a Manichean outlook, which may or may not be perfect for political perspective, but I have no problem leaving that consideration to you...meaning, if you feel that oratorical ability and terrific smile gives one the credentials to be President of the United States...well, De gustibus non est disputandum.

Now, it seems that your post is an attempt to belittle the significance of the OP, and as such defines you as having all the depth of wallpaper.

Put a little effort into it!

So, and dont back peddle here, You believe that someone must be a good writer to be qualified for the POTUS, is that what youre saying? Or that being a good writer is a part of being the POTUS?

No one can agree with your appraisal that you just made up, in fact I would bet that NOT ONE PERSON has said he would be better at the Deputy Education whatever you said. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

You simply dislike the MAN. And all of your opinions come from that being your foundation. Sure today it's his biography, tomorrow it'll be the way he plays basketball or how he chews his food.

 

[EriktheRed]

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

Why would you do that?

I just figured she would stick to the more theoretical intellectual areas like political philosophy, economics and rewriting history of the early 20th century.

Didn't think she'd venture into WND/Newsmax territory.

Silly me...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Politicalchic just hates Obama unless she really cares that much about the literary arts

I don't hate anyone.

I'm simply documenting one more aspect of this empty suit that made and makes him an exceptionally poor choice for the position he holds.

In the past I have suggested that he might be better suited for, say...Deputy Undersectretary of Education.

It seems that more and more folks agree with this appraisal.

I admit to a Manichean outlook, which may or may not be perfect for political perspective, but I have no problem leaving that consideration to you...meaning, if you feel that oratorical ability and terrific smile gives one the credentials to be President of the United States...well, De gustibus non est disputandum.

Now, it seems that your post is an attempt to belittle the significance of the OP, and as such defines you as having all the depth of wallpaper.

Put a little effort into it!

So, and dont back peddle here, You believe that someone must be a good writer to be qualified for the POTUS, is that what youre saying? Or that being a good writer is a part of being the POTUS?

No one can agree with your appraisal that you just made up, in fact I would bet that NOT ONE PERSON has said he would be better at the Deputy Education whatever you said. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

You simply dislike the MAN. And all of your opinions come from that being your foundation. Sure today it's his biography, tomorrow it'll be the way he plays basketball or how he chews his food.

Yours is a very silly post.

1."You believe that someone must be a good writer to be qualified for the POTUS, "
Of course, I never said that. It doesn't set a good tone to your argument if you have to make things up.

2. If you wish to claim to be dense, and I'll accept that you are, then let me clarify for you...not backpeddle, but I had no idea of your limitations, so- to simplify....if the gentleman in question is so devious that he not only won't let on that he has a ghost writer, and, further that said writer is a known terrorist with extreme far Left beliefs, with whom he has a long and profitable realationship, then, no, I don't find him to be acceptable as President of the United States.

Do you understand now? Don't be shy...I'll allow for your incapacity...if you need further explanation, i.e., that it is not just writng ability that excludes the man, just say so and well see if someone possibly of the style of Theodor Seuss Geisel might explain it to you.

3. "No one can agree with your appraisal that you just made up,..."
On the contrary, my appraisal is made of a constellation of considerations, honesty and political beliefs are but two. And if we compare the polls from 2008 to the present, I am, clearly, correct.

4. "You simply dislike the MAN."
I don't know the MAN.
But if we allow that 'the MAN' means his public visage, his actions and policies...then I plead guilty as charged.

How very deft of you to have surmised that so very quickly!
I have no doubt you never belonged in the dumb row!

5. " And all of your opinions come from that being your foundation. Sure today it's his biography..."
I've seen your difficulty in remaining in the realm of reality, but let's try to be technically correct.
If someone more astute than you could spend the time reading the OP to you, you would see that it is Mr. Cashill who has put together an altogether convincing thesis.

I wish it had been myself, but, alas, I can take no credit other than that of revealing it to folks who can understand same.
Unfortunatelly, that leaves you out.

Now, find your crayon, and write soon!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Why would you do that?

I just figured she would stick to the more theoretical intellectual areas like political philosophy, economics and rewriting history of the early 20th century.

Didn't think she'd venture into WND/Newsmax territory.

Silly me...

Erik, silly is the least of your problems.

The supposition that you can either dictate or predict my interests marks you as a back bencher.

May I do some guessing? You and the other fellows are injured by the truth of Mr. Cashill's exposition, 'else, why obloquy?

If it was patently silly, you folks would smile, and walk away.

True? 'Fess up....