Fraud: Obama Exposed!

[ClosedCaption]

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.

You said

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.

Why did you say that if writing isnt at least part of what you think a POTUS be good at?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You said

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.

Why did you say that if writing isnt at least part of what you think a POTUS be good at?

This deserves a 'double-silly' appellation.

Look for phrases such as "one more aspect" and see if you can devine the meaning.
Then compare it to your claim: "You believe that someone must be a good writer to be qualified for the POTUS,..."

Did you get that? 'One more' versus 'must.'

This is the best you can do?

I may have been wrong: perhaps you do belong in the dumb row.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I am impressed… over 100 posts on to what degree was Obama’s book ‘edited’.

This could have been huge in the 2008 race. It ranks up there with:

DUIs
Amount of shrapnel in one’s ass
Vietnam deferments
Grades in school
Plagiarizing speeches
Etc

I believe in 2012 all that will matter is the voter’s perception of Obama’s last four years (as is typical for the incumbent) and who the Republicans put up against him.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

You said

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.

Why did you say that if writing isnt at least part of what you think a POTUS be good at?

This deserves a 'double-silly' appellation.

Look for phrases such as "one more aspect" and see if you can devine the meaning.Then compare it to your claim: "You believe that someone must be a good writer to be qualified for the POTUS,..."

Did you get that? 'One more' versus 'must.'

This is the best you can do?

I may have been wrong: perhaps you do belong in the dumb row.

Try to follow: I said

Why did you say that if writing isnt at least part of what you think a POTUS be good at?

So again, do you believe being a good writer is at least PART of what you think a POTUS should be good at?

 

[NYcarbineer]

how could you tell ?

How could you not?

no... i meant ... how could you tell ??

From reading her posts you moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is how old this tall tale is:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/63093-republican-smear-backfires-2.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's an exquisite article slicing and dicing Jack Cashill over one of his other flights of idiocy:

Deconstructing Jack Cashill | Obama Conspiracy Theories

Point by point, fallacy by fallacy.

Take a lesson, PC.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here's an exquisite article slicing and dicing Jack Cashill over one of his other flights of idiocy:

Deconstructing Jack Cashill | Obama Conspiracy Theories

Point by point, fallacy by fallacy.

Take a lesson, PC.

And at this point I shall indeed smile and walk away.

Have fun further defending this pile of manure, PC.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's an exquisite article slicing and dicing Jack Cashill over one of his other flights of idiocy:

Deconstructing Jack Cashill | Obama Conspiracy Theories

Point by point, fallacy by fallacy.

Take a lesson, PC.

And at this point I shall indeed smile and walk away.

Have fun further defending this pile of manure, PC.

Wow! You can't get enough punishment???

I'm going to have to call you Erik the Eager (you know, 'cause masochist doesn't rhyme).

Here you go....now be honest, and check this out:

1. In fact, no detail by itself proves Ayers' involvement, but the cumulative details overwhelm the open-minded.
a. Is it important to link Ayers with Obama in this way? David Remnick, in his comprehensive new Obama biography, The Bridge, wrote "This was a charge, that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." American Thinker: New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud

b. [Christopher] “Andersen, in "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," writes that Obama was faced with a deadline with the Times Books division of Random House to submit his manuscript after already having canceled a contract with Simon & Schuster. Confronted with the threat of a second failure, his wife, Michelle, suggested he seek the help of "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers." Author confirms Bill Ayers helped Obama write 'Dreams'

2. There are a number of ‘echoes’ that can be found in Ayer’s works and in “Dreams.’
a. Ayers: Narrative begins with something to say; content precedes from. Obama: I understood that I’d spent my life trying to review these stories, plugging up holes in the narratives.

b. Ayers: Narrative inquiry can be a useful corrective to all this. Obama: Truth is the best corrective.

c. Ayers: The mind works in contradiction, and honesty requires the writer to reveal disputes with herself on the page Obama: But I suspect that we can’t pretend that these contradictions of our situation don’t exist. All we can do is choose.

d. Ayers: The reader must actively see the struggle; it is a journey, not by a tourist, but by a pilgrim. Obama: But, all in all, it was an intellectual journey that I imagined for myself, complete with maps and restpoints and a strict itinerary.

3. After Ayer’s dropped out of college, he joined the Merchant Marines. It had a great influence on him, and language and reference to the sea appears often and with regularity. Although there are no literal sea experiences in Dreams, the following words appear in both Dreams and in Ayers’ work: fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, and murky. This is not coincidence. This is fraud.

a. Consider this sentence from “Dreams:” “The notion that for black nationalists the steady attack on the white race served at the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility form tipping into an ocean of despair.”

b. Have you used the term ‘ballast’ in your writing? When was the last time you read the word, if ever?

4. Chris Yavelow’s “’FictionFixer’ (FictionFixer.com - The Future of Fiction Editing), compares any prose its given to any or all of the 210 best-selling novels Yavelow says he has scanned into his Mac G4. The software then looks for patterns—certain words, usages, sentence structure, number of mentions of a character’s name, and the like—and compares it to the target book(s).” Mr. Fix-It: Area Man’s Computerized Writing Analysis Offers Novel Solution

a. As Yavelow explains, authors don’t go from a 3.8 percent use of the passive voice in 1995 to an 8.3 percent use in 2006.

b. Yavelow cites a score of other characteristics that change too conspicuously from one Obama book to the next, among them the Flesch Reading Ease score, the use of gender words, sentence starters, adverbs, discouraged words, sensory triggers, and more.

c. When, however, Yavelow compared Obama’s Dreams with Bill Ayers’ memoir, Fugitive Days, he found the similarity of the two books “striking.” For instance, Dreams averages 17.61 words and 26.48 syllables for non-dialogue sentences. Fugitive Days averages 17.62 words and 26.27 syllables.

d. Another team, from a university: ““Using the chi-square statistic,” they add, “Obama's and Ayers's books were indistinguishable while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors.” Jack Cashill writes: Yavelow Study Confirms Ayers Hand In Obama's "Dreams"

So, wadda ya think, Rikky?
Does Cashill defend the thesis, or what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am impressed… over 100 posts on to what degree was Obama’s book ‘edited’.

This could have been huge in the 2008 race. It ranks up there with:

DUIs
Amount of shrapnel in one’s ass
Vietnam deferments
Grades in school
Plagiarizing speeches
Etc

I believe in 2012 all that will matter is the voter’s perception of Obama’s last four years (as is typical for the incumbent) and who the Republicans put up against him.

Another Riccy?

Welcome to the board, Eric.

As for your post, you seem to have missed the point...
here, let me repeat this from post #112:

Is it important to link Ayers with Obama in this way? David Remnick, in his comprehensive new Obama biography, The Bridge, wrote "This was a charge, that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." American Thinker: New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud

David Remnick is a stauch Obama supporter, and he admits the significance of the link between the two, Ayers and Obama.
Get it now?

 

[Dot Com]

This is how old this tall tale is:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/63093-republican-smear-backfires-2.html

Thats what I was wondering. Why is PC resurrecting something that, even if proven true, is a yawn-fest. ZZZzzz. She should change her username to : *rightie* political chick.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is not really anything new. Everyone knows that Sorenson wrote "Profiles in Courage." To go back further, everyone knows that Hamilton wrote Washington's farewell.

Nothing wrong with a ghost.

the problem with Dreams of My Father is that it does contain Obama's ideas, maybe polished a bit. And it is the ideas themselves that are worthy of examination rather than literary nitpicking.

And given what idea that are in there that Obama's ideas, we really need to on guard against what he has to offer.

I think we should have paid more attention to the fact George W. Bush enjoyed shooting and blowing up frogs as a kid in Midland TX.

As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants — 154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

We're finding out, aren't we? While we, in two articles before the 2000 election — Sept. 21 and Oct. 23 — noted Bush's penchant for blowing up frogs, the corporate media blew it off, just as it had no interest in what he was trying to hide by obtaining a new Texas driver license and his 1976 drunk driving conviction, or the fact he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Instead, they bought into his nonsensical claim of being a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter not a divider" who was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

 

[Eric Cartman]

Another Riccy?

Welcome to the board, Eric.

As for your post, you seem to have missed the point...
here, let me repeat this from post #112:

Is it important to link Ayers with Obama in this way? David Remnick, in his comprehensive new Obama biography, The Bridge, wrote "This was a charge, that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." American Thinker: New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud

David Remnick is a stauch Obama supporter, and he admits the significance of the link between the two, Ayers and Obama.
Get it now?

Operative words "could have" are past tense.

I agree that more Ayers stuff would have hurt then candidate Obama but I doubt it could have much of an effect on President Obama run in 2012.

I think the Ayers and Wright connections were an attempt to paint him as a secret radical but his most radical moves make him look like a neocon (e.g. tax cuts for the rich, pro gun rights, escalated military presence in Afghanistan and Libya, pro oil drilling before BP spill, no public option, etc.)

 

[Dot Com]

Another Riccy?

Welcome to the board, Eric.

As for your post, you seem to have missed the point...
here, let me repeat this from post #112:

Is it important to link Ayers with Obama in this way? David Remnick, in his comprehensive new Obama biography, The Bridge, wrote "This was a charge, that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." American Thinker: New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud

David Remnick is a stauch Obama supporter, and he admits the significance of the link between the two, Ayers and Obama.
Get it now?

Operative words "could have" are past tense.

I agree that more Ayers stuff would have hurt then candidate Obama but I doubt it could have much of an effect on President Obama run in 2012.

I think the Ayers and Wright connections were an attempt to paint him as a secret radical but him most radical moves make him look like a neocon (e.g. tax cuts for the rich, pro gun rights, escalated military presence in Afghanistan and Libya, pro oil drilling before BP spill, no public option, etc.)

I remember that part of the campaign well. Palin was instructed by McCain's campaign, I guess, to use the term "palling @ w/ terrists" at every opportunity and it fell flat. The electorate, or enough of them (me included), had had it w/ the Repub's rule ( 8 yrs Presidency, 6 yrs Congress).

 

[PoliticalChic]

American Thinker Blog: Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father

 

[Vanquish]

Ok, so remind us again what tangential character assassination the proving of the ghostwriting does?

He lied about having a ghostwriter and lying is bad. Is that about the sum of it?

 

[beowolfe]

A lot of politicians use ghost writers, so I don't know for sure who actually sat down and put pen to paper. But I do know who didn't write it. Bill Ayers didn't write it. How do I know? Because Ayers says he didn't write it. And that's more proof that he didn't write it that that guessing in the OP article that he did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of politicians use ghost writers, so I don't know for sure who actually sat down and put pen to paper. But I do know who didn't write it. Bill Ayers didn't write it. How do I know? Because Ayers says he didn't write it. And that's more proof that he didn't write it that that guessing in the OP article that he did.

One can come to any conclusion as long as that one begins, as you have, in ignorance.

You really should have perused the thread, and considered the specifics given as evidence by Cashill.

Here's some:

1. After Ayer’s dropped out of college, he joined the merchant marines. It had a great influence on him, and language and reference to the sea appears often and with regularity. Although there are no literal sea experiences in Dreams, the following words appear in both Dreams and in Ayers’ work, "Fugitive Years": fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, and murky. This is not coincidence. This is fraud.

a. Consider this sentence from “Dreams:” “The notion that for black nationalists the steady attack on the white race served at the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility form tipping into an ocean of despair.”

b. Have you used the term ‘ballast’ in your writing? When was the last time you read the word, if ever?

2. In Ayer’s 1993 book, “To Teach,” he gives this example: 2 kids observing the Hudson River, NYC, and one says the tide is flowing North, and the other, the tide is flowing South. The teacher explains that the Hudson is a tidal river, and at this spot the opposite tides are meeting.

Now, in “Dreams,” Barack Obama is at the parallel river to the Hudson, the East River, which is also a tidal river. A black youngster comes up to him and comments in a similar way about the two opposing tides or currents. And, guess what? Barack explains that the East River is a tidal river, and at this spot the opposite tides are meeting! Coincidence? Or a Merchant Marine explaining about the mysteries of the sea???

3. In Dreams, Obama talks of his love life on only one occasion…. a white woman back in New York. “She was white,” he tells Auma. “She had dark hair, and specks of green in her eyes.” This nameless young woman had grown up on a sprawling estate in the country. Could Obama’s mystery woman have been drawn fully from the memory of Bill Ayers and based on the great love of Ayers’s life, the late Diana Oughton. Physically, the woman of Obama’s memory with her “dark hair, and specks of green in her eyes” evokes images of Oughton. As her FBI files attest, copies of which my correspondent sent me, Oughton had brown hair and green eyes.

a. The two women shared similar family backgrounds as well. In fact, they seemed to have grown up on the very same estate. “The house was very old, her grandfather’s house,” Obama writes of his girlfriend’s country home. “He had inherited it from his grandfather.”

b. Oughton had “brought Bill Ayers and other radicals” to the family homestead in Dwight, Illinois. Oughton’s father’s grandfather built the main house on the estate, a 20-room Victorian mansion.

c. The carriage house, in which Diana lived as a child, now serves as a public library. It may have already seemed like one when Ayers visited, an impression that finds its way into Obama’s words as a library “ filled with old books and pictures of the famous people [the grandfather] had known--presidents, diplomats, industrialists.” The Invented Love Life of Barack Obama

Probably just coincidences, huh?

There is more if you need it...or are you merely out to defend President Obama.
You could watch the lecture itself, link in the OP.

Ayers wrote the book.

Why is that a problem for you?

Because Obama lied? Hey, he's a pol....
Because that means there is no 'hope and change'?

Or because Ayers is a terrorist, and confident of Obama?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of politicians use ghost writers, so I don't know for sure who actually sat down and put pen to paper. But I do know who didn't write it. Bill Ayers didn't write it. How do I know? Because Ayers says he didn't write it. And that's more proof that he didn't write it that that guessing in the OP article that he did.

"Because Ayers says he didn't write it."

Wrong.

Post #118

You're not doing that well today.

 

[FBastiat]

Ok, so remind us again what tangential character assassination the proving of the ghostwriting does?

He lied about having a ghostwriter and lying is bad. Is that about the sum of it?

It just affirms the storyline of Obama being a carefully constructed character for manipulation by the far left -- A man with an empty resume, no major achievements either in the public or private sector, whose history and character include details constructed from whole cloth and which prove to be difficult to corroborate without hitting up against some legal defense, whose associations are extremely questionable, and whose every decision is outsourced to a party of ultra-progressive co-conspirators.