More Birther News - INB4 GS

[BigPapaVol]

Should they be? George W. Bush's reckless past should not have been relevant; Clinton's weed smoking should not have been relevant, neither should his sexual trysts; Kerry's participation in Vietnam War protests should not have been relevant.

What should be relevant are the policies that these individuals espouse and their record of voting on such policies. On that measure, there is a great deal in which to disagree with Obama; I disagree with much of his policies and I wish he were not the POTUS (of course, I do not care for McCain to be the POTUS; I do not want Romney to be the POTUS).

But, the fact that the man's publishing house lied about him in an effort to sell books is not something that is relevant: of course, the things he says in Dreams From My Father, the ideas, particularly his affinity for socialism which he espoused in that book, should be relevant and one should ask Obama which of those ideas he still agrees with and which of them he has since discarded.

how is a person's past not relevant to decisions about his or her future employment? How in the hell can people decide about what a politicians policies might actually be when his penchant for lying like a rug is so plain? What does one use to decide upon folks in a field littered with liars - what they say or what they've done?

Placing this issue at the feet of the publishing house is pathetic, especially given the number of fabrications that litter everything else he has put in / allowed into his bio type books.

 

[BigPapaVol]

This description applies to the vast majority of politicians and cannot be made out to be a specific point of contention with Obama, without also being the same specific point of contention with Romney, McCain, Santorum, Clinton, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

that doesn't change that your argument regarding motive is off.

 

[Gramps]

that doesn't remotely begin to explain allowing his editor to go unchecked with info that he knew to be absolutely false. Hell, that was long before his was a national name.

The bottom line: as your original post points out, the guy will say anything and everything if it means political gain, regardless of reality.

Can you name one politician in Washington that the bolded does not describe?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Can you name one politician in Washington that the bolded does not describe?

Ron Paul.

And I don't claim that Obama has a monopoly on the practice. He claims, and his supporters still slurp it up, that he was a Washington outsider coming in to clean the place up. Even some of his brighter supporters on this site were espousing the silliness.

 

[therealUT]

how is a person's past not relevant to decisions about his or her future employment?

You are equivocating; his past is relevant, insofar as that past consists in policies he espouses and policies he has voted for/against. What is not relevant is whether he has lied to sell books, smoked dope, committed adultery, etc.

How in the hell can people decide about what a politicians policies might actually be when his penchant for lying like a rug is so plain? What does one use to decide upon folks in a field littered with liars - what they say or what they've done?

What they have done, with respect to implementing policy (or, for someone without prior political experience, what they have done with respect to running a business, institution, etc.)

Placing this issue at the feet of the publishing house is pathetic, especially given the number of fabrications that litter everything else he has put in / allowed into his bio type books.

1. You are presuming that Obama did know about this pamphlet; he may have, and he may not have.

2. The publishing house is going to dictate how their authors are marketed. Maybe the publishing house made Obama aware of the bio they were running with in the pamphlet and also told Obama that they thought this bio necessary to sell enough quantities of the book to break even (Dreams From My Father did not sell very well until the second printing of it in 2004), and, further, that without their bio they would not sell the book. Obama knows the bio is a lie but he also knows that he clearly states that he was born in Hawaii in the book. It is still a lie (which is morally indefensible), however, it is no more of a great defect than telling one's wife that their dress does not make them look fat.

3. The only fabrication I can think of, off the top of my head, that Obama has made regarded his life is regarding his mother and insurance companies. Are there others?

 

[Gramps]

Ron Paul.

And I don't claim that Obama has a monopoly on the practice. He claims, and his supporters still slurp it up, that he was a Washington outsider coming in to clean the place up. Even some of his brighter supporters on this site were espousing the silliness.

You got me... I have to agree about Dr Paul.

Every election we have outsiders that are going to DC to clean it up, if they had good intentions it does not take long for them to become corrupt after getting there.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You really think an editor makes anything about an individual public, especially factual type data, without having it verified?

 

[volved]

Should they be? George W. Bush's reckless past should not have been relevant; Clinton's weed smoking should not have been relevant, neither should his sexual trysts; Kerry's participation in Vietnam War protests should not have been relevant.
.

Should they be? Absolutely.

And the vast majority of American voters agree with me.

For example, Bush's reckless past implies a reckless future unless more current events suggest otherwise. Most lefties will say he had a reckless presidency and they can make a good case.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You are equivocating; his past is relevant, insofar as that past consists in policies he espouses and policies he has voted for/against. What is not relevant is whether he has lied to sell books, smoked dope, committed adultery, etc.



What they have done, with respect to implementing policy (or, for someone without prior political experience, what they have done with respect to running a business, institution, etc.)



1. You are presuming that Obama did know about this pamphlet; he may have, and he may not have.

2. The publishing house is going to dictate how their authors are marketed. Maybe the publishing house made Obama aware of the bio they were running with in the pamphlet and also told Obama that they thought this bio necessary to sell enough quantities of the book to break even (Dreams From My Father did not sell very well until the second printing of it in 2004), and, further, that without their bio they would not sell the book. Obama knows the bio is a lie but he also knows that he clearly states that he was born in Hawaii in the book. It is still a lie (which is morally indefensible), however, it is no more of a great defect than telling one's wife that their dress does not make them look fat.

3. The only fabrication I can think of, off the top of my head, that Obama has made regarded his life is regarding his mother and insurance companies. Are there others?

I'm not equivocating. Without the ability to rely upon what a pol says, and no history of policy to fall back on, a decision maker has to fall back on the information available. If said information is a history of flouting the rules, lying or being a POS, then it becomes most relevant.

He also fabricated the piece about actually writing his autobio, made up a girlfriend to do more race baiting, etc.

 

[therealUT]

You really think an editor makes anything about an individual public, especially factual type data, without having it verified?

Yes. In fact, the editors of that very brochure-type book stated that none of the athletes' bios were verified by the individuals, but most of the politicians' bios were. Was Obama's bio was verified? Or, not? After all, at the time of this publication (1991), he was not a politician.

 

[therealUT]

Should they be? Absolutely.

And the vast majority of American voters agree with me.

For example, Bush's reckless past implies a reckless future unless more current events suggest otherwise. Most lefties will say he had a reckless presidency and they can make a good case.

I do not care what the vast majority of American voters think. You tell me why someone who is a bad driver, an adulterer, or a drug-user cannot be a good leader; I guarantee that you will find history riddled with accounts of individuals who accomplished magnificent feats of leadership who were reckless in their youth and/or were at the time of their accomplishments adulterers and drug-users.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yes. In fact, the editors of that very brochure-type book stated that none of the athletes' bios were verified by the individuals, but most of the politicians' bios were. Was Obama's bio was verified? Or, not? After all, at the time of this publication (1991), he was not a politician.

that's all media tripe. Athlete bios are verified by agents, who are legal spokesmen for the athletes.

I think it's borderline absurd to presume that Obama had no idea this was out there. If he didn't know, he doesn't need to be president. If he did and didn't correct it, he doesn't need to be president. There, I've given options.

 

[therealUT]

He also fabricated the piece about actually writing his autobio

Ayers wrote it, correct? Maybe Ayers did write it but there are many autobiographies that are ghost-written and, as that practice is understood and accepted, they are not fabrications. They are simply biographies written with the guidance and cooperation of the individual being written about; as opposed to those biographies that are actually labeled biographies (as opposed to autobiographies) in which the writer is not working with the person of whom they are writing.

 

[volved]

Was Obama's bio was verified? Or, not? After all, at the time of this publication (1991), he was not a politician.

Sixteen years later he was a politician and still "born in Kenya":

Archive.org shows that the Dystel website used the following biography for Obama as of April 3, 2007:

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

 

[therealUT]

that's all media tripe. Athlete bios are verified by agents, who are legal spokesmen for the athletes.

I think it's borderline absurd to presume that Obama had no idea this was out there. If he didn't know, he doesn't need to be president. If he did and didn't correct it, he doesn't need to be president. There, I've given options.

1. Please explain why not knowing what someone writes about you should disqualify you from being President. I am all ears.

2. Please explain why his failure to correct an incredibly minor publication 21 years ago should disqualify him from the Presidency (and, for the record, he did correct it by writing his autobiography in 1995).

 

[therealUT]

Sixteen years later he was a politician and still "born in Kenya":

Does Obama run the Dystel website? Maybe he had more important things to do, like conduct his affairs as a State Senator and a US Senator? Maybe, it was brought to his attention in 2007, and then he requested the correction?

 

[volved]

I do not care what the vast majority of American voters think.

If you care about who is President then you should care about what the vast majority of American voters think given that they elect the President.

 

[BigPapaVol]

1. Please explain why not knowing what someone writes about you should disqualify you from being President. I am all ears.

2. Please explain why his failure to correct an incredibly minor publication 21 years ago should disqualify him from the Presidency (and, for the record, he did correct it by writing his autobiography in 1995).

He authorized them to be writing about him. The world of folks writing biographical info about him at that time had to be tiny. If he didn't know then what was going out, he is incapable (and has now proven it) of being more than a suit.

Answer to 2 is the same as 1. No publication about his history was incredibly minor to him at the time. He has always been the disingenuous guy that we see today.

Wonder where the editor got the info? Think she made it up? Do you really think it didn't originate with Obama? If not, somebody, somewhere just flat out made it up.

 

[therealUT]

If you care about who is President then you should care about what the vast majority of American voters think given that they elect the President.

Nope, I still do not care. I care what I think and I care what I do and I care how I vote. I am not responsible for what the rest of the American populous does, nor do I want to be responsible for them. It would be nice if the voting populous voted according to policy and voting-records; unfortunately they do not and elect to buy into rhetoric, charisma, and flattery. It would be nicer if the voting populous did not vote for the POTUS; unfortunately, the states handed over that power to the individuals in the early 1800s, thus making the POTUS just one more representative.

I choose the policy over the man anytime I am given the chance.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I choose the policy over the man anytime I am given the chance.

that's only of any value whatsoever when the policy is on display, as opposed to simple talk about said policy. In the absence of evidence, character is what you're left with.

 

[therealUT]

He authorized them to be writing about him. The world of folks writing biographical info about him at that time had to be tiny. If he didn't know then what was going out, he is incapable (and has now proven it) of being more than a suit.

Answer to 2 is the same as 1. No publication about his history was incredibly minor to him at the time. He has always been the disingenuous guy that we see today.

1. I imagine that there were many that wanted to write about him. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review; he had an interesting history in that he was born to a Kenyan, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. These things have the potential to make for interesting reads; further, coming out of Harvard, he immediately got picked up by UChicago.

2. In 1991, Obama had just taken a position at UChicago. First-year academics are absolutely swamped and, unlike tenured academics, they usually try to do absolutely everything and anything in their purview in order to make a good impression and hopefully gain tenure. Proofreading anything tertiary to his duties at UChicago was most likely not a huge priority.

Wonder where the editor got the info? Think she made it up? Do you really think it didn't originate with Obama? If not, somebody, somewhere just flat out made it up.

It is possible Obama told her; it is also just as possible that she inferred it from a conversation in which Obama stated that his father was Kenyan and that his mother had taken a trip to Kenya while pregnant with him.

Again, the presumption is on innocence, and your assumptions are just as baseless as mine. You were not there; you do not know if Obama checked his bio; you do not know what was said in the conversations between Obama and this publishing house. What we do know, is that in 1995, Obama's autobiography was published in which it is stated that he was born in Hawaii. That is a correction, by the way; and, a correction made to the publishing house.

 

[therealUT]

that's only of any value whatsoever when the policy is on display, as opposed to simple talk about said policy. In the absence of evidence, character is what you're left with.

There was a two-year voting record with the US Senate and a seven-year voting record with the Illinois State Senate. I am not saying that it was a good record; I did not vote for Obama, I will not vote for him this time around. However, I am not voting for him because of his policies.

 

[BigPapaVol]

1. I imagine that there were many that wanted to write about him. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review; he had an interesting history in that he was born to a Kenyan, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. These things have the potential to make for interesting reads; further, coming out of Harvard, he immediately got picked up by UChicago.

2. In 1991, Obama had just taken a position at UChicago. First-year academics are absolutely swamped and, unlike tenured academics, they usually try to do absolutely everything and anything in their purview in order to make a good impression and hopefully gain tenure. Proofreading anything tertiary to his duties at UChicago was most likely not a huge priority.



It is possible Obama told her; it is also just as possible that she inferred it from a conversation in which Obama stated that his father was Kenyan and that his mother had taken a trip to Kenya while pregnant with him.

Again, the presumption is on innocence, and your assumptions are just as baseless as mine. You were not there; you do not know if Obama checked his bio; you do not know what was said in the conversations between Obama and this publishing house. What we do know, is that in 1995, Obama's autobiography was published in which it is stated that he was born in Hawaii. That is a correction, by the way; and, a correction made to the publishing house.

how are my assumptions as baseless as yours. Editors get approval to publish facts about people to avoid pesky little things like lawsuits.

Again, the information was put out there somewhere and your scenario is a gigantic leap relative to mine. If any editor out there was authorized by Obama and as incompetent as you imply, Obama's a worse judge of character than even I would have thought. No scenario paints a good picture.

 

[therealUT]

how are my assumptions as baseless as yours. Editors get approval to publish facts about people to avoid pesky little things like lawsuits.

Negative. Editors do not need legal approval to publish facts. Further, what is defamatory about misstating the location of one's birth?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Negative. Editors do not need legal approval to publish facts. Further, what is defamatory about misstating the location of one's birth?

defamatory? Raising enough questions about his birth in the US to keep him from being elected? That count?

Editors need nothing to publish facts. Editors need help when speculating about facts about others.