Did Bill Ayers Write Obama's Dreams from My Father?

[Ducky]

For the record, Delphi ote is locked in my closet. I will be sure to spank him for you.

(I wish he'd get off his ass and post here more often. I will give him crap about this next time I talk to him I open the closet door to feed him.

 

[Brainster]

HEY! OPSEC! Or else house-frying will follow!

But I (a conservative) was writing that, and so you have to use the secret decoder ring, which means... jeez, this is getting pretty tangled isn't it?

Back in the real world, it was pretty clear to me that you didn't buy into it...

Assuming a large number of such coincidences were found, the rational explanation is that one or the other is a plagiarist, not that anything was actually ghostwritten. Happens all the time.

Or, perhaps, they're really the same person. I'm not sure whether a Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde scenario, or a conjoined-twin construction, sort of like Kuato, is more parsimonious. Maybe those can be the pillars of the inevitable schism in our new Obama Truth Movement.

It is quite possible that it's just a coincidence, too, or there could be a third source (a Mike Royko or Studs Terkel chestnut).

One thing that does get me though, is that this stuff (and the Birther stuff) make even less sense just as a strategy than Trooferism. I mean, suppose you're approached in 2004 about 9-11 Troof, and they tell you that if it's true it's the end of Bush and Cheney. You know what? They're right; if it had been true it would have killed the Republicans forever.

Now suppose the "Dreamers" (since Obama's book was Dreams from My Father) or the Birthers are right, and that Obama is drubbed from office, his very name a mockery. What happens?

Joe Biden becomes president. It's kind of like a Hail Mary Pass when you're behind 54-7; even if you succeed you lose.

 

[Brainster]

I was quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions, but your response suggesting that getting a quote wrong due to a misinformed source means that plagiarism must be an equally valid possibility is not what I would call a neutral disinterest in a conspiracy theory, but a backhanded promotion of the same.

Say hi to Foolmewunz when you see him. I won't be seeing either of you in the forum again.

 

[Brainster]

BTW, since Bolo brought it up, I thought I would point out that Boloboffin and I collaborated on this story, which blasted the #1 Book on the New York Times Bestseller List, an anti-Obama tract by Jerome Corsi called the Obama Nation, out of the water.

I had heard Corsi on Alex Jones talking about 9-11 Truth and pointed it out to Bolo, who took the audio and made a little YouTube video out of it. The New York Times and the Obama campaign ended up linking the video. Major conservative blogs posted it and told their readers not to bother with Corsi's book.



But you know, I'm just a partisan Republican who mindlessly bashes Obama....

 

[SezMe]

When a presidential candidate is an unknown quantity, like Bush in 2000 or Obama in 2008, people do have to look into the past, because of course we know they're only showing us their good side while running.

I'd argue, Brainster, that every candidate is only trying to show their good side, whether they are a newcomer or an incumbent. All will be subject to looking into their past, with cherry-picking by the opposition being the order of the day.

 

[SezMe]

Say hi to Foolmewunz when you see him. I won't be seeing either of you in the forum again.

You're not an unreasonable guy, Brainster. Why the prediliction for putting on ignore those who disagree with you?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Well, it's rather annoying because when I post this stuff on my political blog and say it's a lot of bunk I get accused of being an Alinsky disciple working to undermine the conservative movement. And when I post it here, people with the conservative decoder ring like Foolmewunz see right away that I'm promoting the story by talking about what a bunch of BS it is.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

For what it's worth, I'm still a fan of yours, and I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative".

You're quite the figure in debunking and political circles, and I think I understand why you'd want to silence some of the extraneous chatter.

 

[Brainster]

You're not an unreasonable guy, Brainster. Why the prediliction for putting on ignore those who disagree with you?

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.

 

[Brainster]

I'd argue, Brainster, that every candidate is only trying to show their good side, whether they are a newcomer or an incumbent. All will be subject to looking into their past, with cherry-picking by the opposition being the order of the day.

Yes, but it doesn't work against incumbent presidents, because they are not judged by their long ago past, but by the last 4 years. That's why the 60 Minutes piece in 2004 was doomed to failure even if they had gotten legitimate memos from the 1970s and not something somebody printed off a computer.

It sounds unfair, but it's reality. Kerry's past all the way back to Vietnam was fair game in 2004; Bush's past only mattered since 2000. And it will be the same in 2012; the Republican candidate's entire history will matter; Obama will solely be judged on 2008 forward.

 

[T.A.M.]

Danke!



My other point, which nobody's commenting on, still applies. When a presidential candidate is an unknown quantity, like Bush in 2000 or Obama in 2008, people do have to look into the past, because of course we know they're only showing us their good side while running. Hence the Bush DWI incident mattered a great deal in 2000; it almost resulted in a huge upset.

But Republicans are kidding themselves if they think this sort of crap will matter in 2012, which will be a referendum on the Obama first term. It won't be about Bill Ayers or any of that stuff, which I admit troubled me when Obama was running last year. Indeed, I kept trying to tell Republicans who were salivating over facing Hillary (before she got upset) that every mention of Whitewater would cost the GOP 100,000 votes.

Not to derail too heavily into politics, but I think 2012 will be as much a referendum on the abysmal state of the GOP as on Obama's first term.

I personally am routing for Palin as GOP candidate for 2012!!!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.

Pat;

given all the common that we share (against the truthers at least), and the fights we have fought together, I am shocked that a single comment, even if it was one that you found so annoying (my apologies), would make you consider putting me on ignore.

A simple tongue in cheek "Go **** yourself" would have been sufficient.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

Pat;

given all the common that we share (against the truthers at least), and the fights we have fought together, I am shocked that a single comment, even if it was one that you found so annoying (my apologies), would make you consider putting me on ignore.

A simple tongue in cheek "Go **** yourself" would have been sufficient.

TAM

No, it wouldn't have been sufficient, because the claim that I was being dishonest would have stood uncorrected. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I know what my hot buttons are, and that's definitely one of them.

 

[Robster FCD]

Wow, Brainster, seriously? If disagreeing with you is all it takes to get put on ignore... No mind reading was used, just indignation at your fallacious statement that if I accepted one option as a possible then the other must be accepted on equal footing, even while you were being dismissive of the same.

 

[Brainster]

For what it's worth, I'm still a fan of yours, and I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative".

You're quite the figure in debunking and political circles, and I think I understand why you'd want to silence some of the extraneous chatter.

Thanks! Sometimes we only respond to the people arguing with us, and I didn't want to make that mistake with one of my old buds from the original LC thread. I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil. I just wish I could convince some of my conservative friends of that.

 

[T.A.M.]

Thanks! Sometimes we only respond to the people arguing with us, and I didn't want to make that mistake with one of my old buds from the original LC thread. I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil. I just wish I could convince some of my conservative friends of that.

Come over to the dark si....oh wait, you are already on the dark side.

Come over to the light side of the force Luke!!!

TAM

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.

Well, since Brainster has resorted to ignoring people who don't agree with him, this will likely be addressed to others.

I'm a big fan of Brainster's work in debunking the obscenity that is the Truth Movement. And I like the guy.

I, also, take massive offense to being called a liar. And if that's what the Brainster thought, then I truly apologize (should any of you run into him at Central Perk).

I thought we were having a discussion, and perhaps it's best that it doesn't continue, anyway.

But placing people on Ignore is just plain childish.

 

[R.Mackey]

I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil.

You may be referring to this thread from days of yore. I didn't factor in the "importance" of the theory, but I did penalize it heavily for being incomplete, which would seem to apply here.

As you say, if it was true, so what? Although the people pushing this aren't out to "win," per se. It's all about teh Ownage. Doesn't matter that they flunked out of kindergarten and think that General Relativity is an old uncle of theirs who was in the Army, all it takes is one slip of the keyboard, and you're Pwned.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And the next bit is even weaker. Cashill and his correspondent find 180 close matches between Dreams and Ayers' books, but only 6 of those apply to one of Cashill's own books. But that doesn't really tell us anything; it would be far more useful to know how many close matches there are between Cashill's book and Ayers' books.

Yeah, there ought to be a name for this error in statistics, except that I don't think that anyone's ever been dumb enough to make it before. Perhaps we could name it after Cashill.

 

[Whiplash]

Foolmewunz, from what I saw, you were dismissive of the issue entirely, and took shots at Brainster right from the start.

The way you insulted Brainster, and then say he's childish for ignoring, strikes me as the metaphorical equivalent of slapping someone in the face, said person says "hey, what did you do that for?", and then you say "stop whining!". You brought it on yourself, you were definately insulting and assumed a helluva lot.

You went on to accuse him of having a plan to smear people, intentionally, hoping any of it stuck. The entire post you made was insulting, assuming you know everything that he was thinking and trying to accomplish. This is why I am defending him, because I hate it when those of you on the left do the very same to me. You guys are the masters of the strawman argument. Paint us out the way you feel we are, and then dismiss us out of hand.

You acuse him of not seeing his own biases, but clearly it's a problem you also suffer from. Perhaps we all do on some level. But it couldn't be more clear that you were driven by your own biases here. You leaped to Obama's defense, and attacked Brainster, nearly instantly.

 

[Hokulele]

<snipped>

I'm a big fan of Brainster's work in debunking the obscenity that is the Truth Movement. And I like the guy.

I, also, take massive offense to being called a liar. And if that's what the Brainster thought, then I truly apologize (should any of you run into him at Central Perk).

<snip>

I wanted to quote at least this part, so Brainster could see it.

I did snip out the parts that could prolong the bickering, so sorry Foolmewunz. All I can say is that I didn't edit out of spite, but rather because I do respect the both of you.


Getting back to the OP:

Brainster, as just a piece of textual criticism, this thread may have gone in the direction you intended if you had mentioned your conclusion first, then shown the data to support it. The way the post was structured, it came across as sounding as if you were looking for reasons to support the accusation against Obama, and many people may not have made it to your real point (the tendency of the electorate to judge an incumbent based on their recent history rather than their past).