|
|
|
|
Oh please, everyone has had far more subtle social manipulation techniques than direct propoganda (the stuff referred to in the article) for decades. Even the Chinese use less direct approaches now.
|
Obama has done a few things that I don't like, but he is a much better president than Romney ever could be...
|
On May 19 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 04:06 darthfoley wrote:On May 18 2012 12:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2012 09:45 Defacer wrote:On May 18 2012 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2012 07:54 Defacer wrote:Update from the man that wrote the bio: Literary Agent Says 1991 Booklet was a Mistake
Breitbart News reports on a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency which describes the author as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."
Miriam Goderich issued the following statement to Political Wire:
"You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."
Full disclosure: I am a client of the same literary agency. What's more likely? That state-issued birth certificates and passports have been forged, Secret Service background checks have failed, the entire news media is in Obama's pocket, and not a single credible witness or account has come forward to verify Obama's birth in Kenya? Or a junior/low-level assistant had a deadline and wrote a half-assed bio one afternoon? Actually, I would bet that Obama purposely misstated where he was born to improve his resume. Does being born in Kenya make anyone sound better? Seems like a silly thing to lie about. I attribute it to some person asking around the office, "His father is Kenyan, right? How about his mom? Some white lady? His synopsis says he was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. Is this guy American or Indonesia or what? "Fuck it, I'm writing Kenya." Playing up one's minority status is big in liberal -- especially legal -- circles in the US. Think of it as a big, feel-good circle jerk for the "socially conscious." You'd have to be a lawyer and around those people to really understand. so i'm assuming you're a lawyer then? Yep.
Pic of law degree or it didn't happen.
|
coverpunch United States. May 19 2012 03:48. Posts 86
"What you need is a policy where money will be spent primarily on benefiting American consumers while hiring American workers. Sooner or later, IMO this will mean a drastic increase in military spending"
What benefits do american consumers get from monney spend on the military??
Its an interesting idea, but spending it on the military doesnt seem to match this.
If you want hire american workers wich benefit american consumers i would be thinking about healthcare and other social services, or huge infrastructure projects (hoover dam)
Tread maker feels slightly biased, by mentioning the full names of both candidates lol.
Annyway, am starting to think that mitt romney will win, he seems to have the preference of the captains of industry.
The direction of the Dow jones index should be a clear tell.
If it stays at least level from now on obama should win, if it drops romney will.
Maybe obama has done his job for corporate america already, regaining credibility in the world after the disaster for american pr that bush had been.
dw i didnt vote in the poll
BluePanther United States. May 18 2012 16:14. Posts 675
thx for posting this, realy nice to see
|
On May 19 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 04:37 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 04:25 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 04:15 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 03:54 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 01:53 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Yep, there's definitely no basis for my assertion that Obama has fibbed about his birthplace. While some quickly dismissed as an anomaly yesterday’s explosive revelation that Barack Obama’s former literary agency billed him as “born in Kenya” back in 1991 in connection with a book he never wrote, WND has discovered much later published references – some dated as recently as 2003 – used to promote his highly touted book “Dreams of My Father.”
As WND reported, Breitbart News originally found a brochure from two decades ago in which literary agency Acton & Dystel promoted Obama as the author of the never-produced “Journeys in Black and White” by declaring Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
Through the Internet archive Wayback Machine, WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black 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 is ‘Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
Twelve years later, however, the Dystel of Acton & Dystel was busy promoting Obama’s new book, “Dreams of My Father,” and still touting the author as “born in Kenya.”
Even if the original 1991 brochure’s listing of Kenya as Obama’s birthplace was in error, as the agency has since claimed, it apparently was an error Obama allowed his publicist to persist in for over a decade. Source. No, there's no basis for your assertion, since there is zero evidence it's Obama who lied about his birthplace rather than the editor who made a mistake (as the very person with whom the mistake originated claimed herself). Let's look at those biographies. 1991: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister" 2003: "Barack Obama was the first black 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. " 2007: "Barack Obama [...] was [...] 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." Don't they look somewhat similar to you? Do you think that maybe, I don't know, the original mistake simply was not corrected when the short biographies were copy/pasted? Or is that too much of a stretch? Sure, they are extremely similar. But now that it's shown up more than once, the claim that "Obama never saw it" is far less likely. I know that every time someone writes a profile on me, I am curious and want to read it. Good for you. I don't think you'll find many authors who actively fact-check the paragraph-bios of themselves written by their editor, especially if it's the same bio getting updated every once in a while. On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:The truth is that Obama likely doesn't even know where he was born himself. Do you remember where you were when you were <1 month old? He probably saw it and was like "fuck it, whatever. makes me sound better anyways." It's a weak argument that he did something wrong or that he's a bad person... but I see no reason why Daunt isn't allowed to make his claim.
No, there's nothing that indicates he "probably saw it" and "was like, fuck it". xDaunt is of course allowed to make his claim, but he's trying to argue that his assertion is solidly grounded when it's not in the slightest. You claim there is nothing to indicate he saw it. There is also NOTHING to indicate he didn't see it. Your argument is not any more grounded in fact than Daunt's, and your inability to grasp this is frustrating. All we know is he didn't write it (allegedly). You will not be able to prove a negative. Therefore, Daunt's suspicions cannot be debunked, nor can they be proven wrong. And they are definitely NOT out of the realm of possibility. I already explained on the last page that I completely agreed it was in the realm of possibility. Alien intervention in modifying the biography is also in the realm of possibility. xDaunt is arguing his assertion is grounded when it's not. He's making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with him. When someone proposes a suspicion, I consider it grounded when it's reasonably plausible. The idea that Obama saw it and didn't object is reasonably plausible when you consider the atmosphere he was working in. This is not the same as Obama confirming the statement as true, or admission by omission. What do you define as "grounded"? That it must be proven as fact? Daunt merely said "I would bet x". He's not claiming a fact, he's claiming a guess at what the fact is. None of the evidence disproves this guess. "well-grounded" means "well-founded". Assumptions that have no factual evidence to support them are not "well-grounded". They're assumptions. Daunt was clearly saying that given that social circle, it was unlikely it went unnoticed by Obama. Since I'm in that social circle, I understand what he's referring to. And he's right. There's no "proof", and it's probably impossible to find any. But it's definitely reasonable, in the sense that I would put it up there in the 50-50 range. Does that not meet your "well-grounded" definition?
No, it's not "unlikely" it went unnoticed by Obama - that's your opinion. You putting it "up there in the 50-50 range" is just as irrelevant. "Well-grounded" means it is based on something more consistent than someone's personal opinion. In this case, saying Obama either lied himself or purposively let the mistake remain is based on absolutely no evidence and is not even the simplest explanation (a mistake that went unnoticed for some time and was corrected when it was noticed). So no, it's not "well-grounded". Give it a rest already...
|
On May 19 2012 13:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 04:37 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 04:25 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 04:15 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 03:54 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 01:53 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Yep, there's definitely no basis for my assertion that Obama has fibbed about his birthplace. [quote] Source. No, there's no basis for your assertion, since there is zero evidence it's Obama who lied about his birthplace rather than the editor who made a mistake (as the very person with whom the mistake originated claimed herself). Let's look at those biographies. 1991: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister" 2003: "Barack Obama was the first black 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. " 2007: "Barack Obama [...] was [...] 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." Don't they look somewhat similar to you? Do you think that maybe, I don't know, the original mistake simply was not corrected when the short biographies were copy/pasted? Or is that too much of a stretch? Sure, they are extremely similar. But now that it's shown up more than once, the claim that "Obama never saw it" is far less likely. I know that every time someone writes a profile on me, I am curious and want to read it. Good for you. I don't think you'll find many authors who actively fact-check the paragraph-bios of themselves written by their editor, especially if it's the same bio getting updated every once in a while. On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:The truth is that Obama likely doesn't even know where he was born himself. Do you remember where you were when you were <1 month old? He probably saw it and was like "fuck it, whatever. makes me sound better anyways." It's a weak argument that he did something wrong or that he's a bad person... but I see no reason why Daunt isn't allowed to make his claim.
No, there's nothing that indicates he "probably saw it" and "was like, fuck it". xDaunt is of course allowed to make his claim, but he's trying to argue that his assertion is solidly grounded when it's not in the slightest. You claim there is nothing to indicate he saw it. There is also NOTHING to indicate he didn't see it. Your argument is not any more grounded in fact than Daunt's, and your inability to grasp this is frustrating. All we know is he didn't write it (allegedly). You will not be able to prove a negative. Therefore, Daunt's suspicions cannot be debunked, nor can they be proven wrong. And they are definitely NOT out of the realm of possibility. I already explained on the last page that I completely agreed it was in the realm of possibility. Alien intervention in modifying the biography is also in the realm of possibility. xDaunt is arguing his assertion is grounded when it's not. He's making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with him. When someone proposes a suspicion, I consider it grounded when it's reasonably plausible. The idea that Obama saw it and didn't object is reasonably plausible when you consider the atmosphere he was working in. This is not the same as Obama confirming the statement as true, or admission by omission. What do you define as "grounded"? That it must be proven as fact? Daunt merely said "I would bet x". He's not claiming a fact, he's claiming a guess at what the fact is. None of the evidence disproves this guess. "well-grounded" means "well-founded". Assumptions that have no factual evidence to support them are not "well-grounded". They're assumptions. Daunt was clearly saying that given that social circle, it was unlikely it went unnoticed by Obama. Since I'm in that social circle, I understand what he's referring to. And he's right. There's no "proof", and it's probably impossible to find any. But it's definitely reasonable, in the sense that I would put it up there in the 50-50 range. Does that not meet your "well-grounded" definition? No, it's not "unlikely" it went unnoticed by Obama - that's your opinion. You putting it "up there in the 50-50 range" is just as irrelevant. "Well-grounded" means it is based on something more consistent than someone's personal opinion. In this case, saying Obama either lied himself or purposively let the mistake remain is based on absolutely no evidence and is not even the simplest explanation (a mistake that went unnoticed for some time and was corrected when it was noticed). So no, it's not "well-grounded". Give it a rest already...
You're simply twisting words and meanings to get to the result you pre-determined, while setting double standards for others opinions that you do not hold yourself to. I'm just writing this to inform you that I think you're a tool and that I am letting this go so it can get back to discussion of the actual election (and I can get back to my work).
+ Show Spoiler +
|
If you actually want to let shit go, don't try to get the fucking last word in. All that does is tempts the other person to get his last word in and renews the conversation. Especially last words that basically amount to "ur a faget". Take the parting shot and move on.
*ahem* That and there's not too much to discuss at this point. The campaign season hasn't begun in earnest yet; not many scandulous advertisments, controversial talking points or significant polls to discuss in earnest.
|
Ten reasons why I am NOT voting for Mitt Romney:
1. He wants to repeal all sorts of environmental protection legislation
2. He wants to increase the already way too high defense budget
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear.
4. He is against universal healthcare
5. He is against gay marriage and has conservative stances on other social issues
6. He supports the prison at Guantanamo Bay and thinks it should be expanded
7. He tried to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts when he was governor
8. He was against the building of a wind farm in Cape Cod because it would create a "visual detriment", but supports allowing oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
9. His views on foreign policy are incredibly outdated. He thinks that Russia is still our #1 geopolitical enemy.
10. His ideas on how the tax code should be changed would favor the wealthiest Americans while hurting everyone else
|
On May 19 2012 14:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 13:15 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 04:37 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 04:25 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 04:15 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 03:54 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:On May 19 2012 01:53 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, there's no basis for your assertion, since there is zero evidence it's Obama who lied about his birthplace rather than the editor who made a mistake (as the very person with whom the mistake originated claimed herself).
Let's look at those biographies.
1991: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister"
2003: "Barack Obama was the first black 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. "
2007: "Barack Obama [...] was [...] 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."
Don't they look somewhat similar to you? Do you think that maybe, I don't know, the original mistake simply was not corrected when the short biographies were copy/pasted? Or is that too much of a stretch? Sure, they are extremely similar. But now that it's shown up more than once, the claim that "Obama never saw it" is far less likely. I know that every time someone writes a profile on me, I am curious and want to read it. Good for you. I don't think you'll find many authors who actively fact-check the paragraph-bios of themselves written by their editor, especially if it's the same bio getting updated every once in a while. On May 19 2012 02:59 BluePanther wrote:The truth is that Obama likely doesn't even know where he was born himself. Do you remember where you were when you were <1 month old? He probably saw it and was like "fuck it, whatever. makes me sound better anyways." It's a weak argument that he did something wrong or that he's a bad person... but I see no reason why Daunt isn't allowed to make his claim.
No, there's nothing that indicates he "probably saw it" and "was like, fuck it". xDaunt is of course allowed to make his claim, but he's trying to argue that his assertion is solidly grounded when it's not in the slightest. You claim there is nothing to indicate he saw it. There is also NOTHING to indicate he didn't see it. Your argument is not any more grounded in fact than Daunt's, and your inability to grasp this is frustrating. All we know is he didn't write it (allegedly). You will not be able to prove a negative. Therefore, Daunt's suspicions cannot be debunked, nor can they be proven wrong. And they are definitely NOT out of the realm of possibility. I already explained on the last page that I completely agreed it was in the realm of possibility. Alien intervention in modifying the biography is also in the realm of possibility. xDaunt is arguing his assertion is grounded when it's not. He's making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with him. When someone proposes a suspicion, I consider it grounded when it's reasonably plausible. The idea that Obama saw it and didn't object is reasonably plausible when you consider the atmosphere he was working in. This is not the same as Obama confirming the statement as true, or admission by omission. What do you define as "grounded"? That it must be proven as fact? Daunt merely said "I would bet x". He's not claiming a fact, he's claiming a guess at what the fact is. None of the evidence disproves this guess. "well-grounded" means "well-founded". Assumptions that have no factual evidence to support them are not "well-grounded". They're assumptions. Daunt was clearly saying that given that social circle, it was unlikely it went unnoticed by Obama. Since I'm in that social circle, I understand what he's referring to. And he's right. There's no "proof", and it's probably impossible to find any. But it's definitely reasonable, in the sense that I would put it up there in the 50-50 range. Does that not meet your "well-grounded" definition? No, it's not "unlikely" it went unnoticed by Obama - that's your opinion. You putting it "up there in the 50-50 range" is just as irrelevant. "Well-grounded" means it is based on something more consistent than someone's personal opinion. In this case, saying Obama either lied himself or purposively let the mistake remain is based on absolutely no evidence and is not even the simplest explanation (a mistake that went unnoticed for some time and was corrected when it was noticed). So no, it's not "well-grounded". Give it a rest already... You're simply twisting words and meanings to get to the result you pre-determined, while setting double standards for others opinions that you do not hold yourself to. I'm just writing this to inform you that I think you're a tool and that I am letting this go so it can get back to discussion of the actual election (and I can get back to my work). + Show Spoiler +
I'm not twisting anything. You're trying to pass off someone's unfounded assumption/opinion as "well-grounded" when, being based on absolutely nothing and far from the simplest explanation, it's the exact opposite of well-grounded as defined by the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-grounded
Classy way to get out of the argument, btw.
|
|
|
On May 19 2012 15:53 Voltaire wrote:
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear.
You mean he is a politician?
|
On May 20 2012 01:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 15:53 Voltaire wrote:
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear. You mean he is a politician?
yes... and? how is that not a good reason
|
Ron Paul backers have secured 12 of 13 delegates at Minnesota’ state GOP convention, according to a source who was there and is familiar with the delegates’ leanings.
Saturday’s convention gives Paul 32 of Minnesota’s 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., after his strong showing in the state’s congressional-district conventions.
Paul announced on Monday he would no longer campaign in new states but would continue to organize at conventions to secure delegates in states that have already voted.
Source
|
Nathan...again. I remember his name from last go around. Sad.
Romney Fraud at Arizona GOP convention
“They took a bunch of our winners off and then stuck on a bunch of their losers. At first they had a total of 58 elected, most of them were ours. Then it all turned.” – Shawn Dow, Ron Paul State Coordinator.
According to many sources, Ron Paul supporters won a clean democratic majority of the delegates at the recent Arizona State GOP convention but Mitt Romney had an advantage that in the end the Ronulans could not match. Romney had Nathan Sproul, a political operative who was famously accused of voter registration fraud during the last election cycle.
Read:
“Accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states.”
More on voter registration fraud.
“Team Bush paid millions to Nathan Sproul and then tried to hide it.”
Source
Embedded links at linked source to Original Story reguarding Bush. Skeleton in the closet weekend for Obama and Romney.
|
According to many sources
Like?
|
On May 20 2012 03:17 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 01:45 SeaSwift wrote:On May 19 2012 15:53 Voltaire wrote:
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear. You mean he is a politician? yes... and? how is that not a good reason
It's not a good reason because it doesn't distinguish Romney from any other Presidential candidates ever.
There's plenty of reasons not to vote for him; I'm sure you can come up with better examples than "because he's a politician".
|
Have to give Obama credit as he just dinged Romney on a Cory Booker question.
“When you are president as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, job is not simply to maximize profits,” Obama continued. “Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country gets a fair shot.”
Source
|
On May 20 2012 01:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 15:53 Voltaire wrote:
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear. You mean he is a politician?
Obama isn't contradictory, as much as he is evasive and withholds information -- which is pretty normal for politicians and quite frankly, any CEO or manager that knows that disclosing everything fully would either make their own job harder, demotivate other people, or leave no room for negotiation or compromise.
Pretty standard stuff. For example, Obama has been fairly forthright on his "evolving" perspective on gay marriage, and non-committal regarding his own beliefs. Yes it's annoying as hell not to take a solid position, but it's not dishonest to essentially say, "I haven't decided."
Mitt Romney literally tells one group of people one thing and another group of people the opposite. He's proven that he will literally say or believe anything.
In a weird way, I much prefer someone that will bullshit and go to great lengths to avoid answering a question, rather than tell you the answer you want to hear. At least the former has enough integrity to not say something they themselves do not believe in, and will go to the trouble of dodging your question. Saying whatever people want to hear is no different from having no position all, or being apathetic to the truth.
Edit: Then again, it's not that hard to go through any politicians career and note when they've contradicted themselves or flipped on positions.
|
On May 22 2012 08:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 01:45 SeaSwift wrote:On May 19 2012 15:53 Voltaire wrote:
3. He panders to whoever is in the room. He contradicts himself all the time in order to tell people what they want to hear. You mean he is a politician? Obama isn't contradictory, as much as he is evasive and withholds information -- which is pretty normal for politicians and quite frankly, any CEO or manager that knows that disclosing everything fully would either make their own job harder, demotivate other people, or leave no room for negotiation or compromise. Pretty standard stuff. For example, Obama has been fairly forthright on his "evolving" perspective on gay marriage, and non-committal regarding his own beliefs. Yes it's annoying as hell not to take a solid position, but it's not dishonest to essentially say, "I haven't decided." Mitt Romney literally tells one group of people one thing and another group of people the opposite. He's proven that he will literally say or believe anything. In a weird way, I much prefer someone that will bullshit and go to great lengths to avoid answering a question, rather than tell you the answer you want to hear. At least the former has enough integrity to not say something they themselves do not believe in, and will go to the trouble of dodging your question. Saying whatever people want to hear is no different from having no position all, or being apathetic to the truth. Edit: Then again, it's not that hard to go through any politicians career and note when they've contradicted themselves or flipped on positions.
Actually, that's inaccurate. Obama has flip-flopped on gay marriage since the beginning of his political career. Here's a brief summary in the spirit of the flip-flopper emeritus, John F. Kerry: Obama was "for it, before he was against it, and before he was for it again."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
