Obama used terrorist Ayers as a ghostwriter

[Tricky]

Can someone prove Jack's theory is flawed and without substance? I thought this guiy devoted lots of research into the subject. Have you guys? What are YOUR credentials to discredit this PH.D.? Are you discrediting him because you want Obama elected, no matter what?

You obviously don't understand how theories work. You start with the facts and work toward the conclusion. Jack's "theory" has done the opposite.

And no, I don't want Obama elected "no matter what". If serious issues about Obama were verified, I'd vote for McCain. This is innuendo. It is not a serious issue.

Can you prove to me that the Grand Canyon is a result of errosion? How can YOU prove it, unless you accept second hand proof?

Well, I'm a geologist and I can tell you that the erosional origin of the Grand Canyon is well established. For example, they have found sediments that match the beds of the grand canyon deposited in the offshore, carried there by rivers. They have been rounded and broken by travel and by other fluvial and marine processes, but you can match the minerology. You can also show that it is still being eroded today simply by examining the sediments in terrace deposits that occur during floods. You can even measure the amount of erosion when the river floods. (And they do). That is about as first-hand as you can get. Only a person who was determined to believe otherwise would deny this evidence.

What if I tell you God did it and the researchers are wrong? I suppose you will then say many researchers agree on that fact.

I would ask you for your evidence. If you didn't have any, I would discard your hypothesis, because without evidence, it is worthless.

Okay, what if I tell you that only Jack has really seriously looked into this? Now where do we go from here? Wouldn't it be a logical first step rather than to belittle those hypothesizing, to then have others first take a look into this, before name calling?

Sure why not? First of all, you should ask Ayers. He might be able to tell you, and even provide evidence, of what he was doing when the book was written. Then you should look for notes and preliminary versions. Then you should speak to the publishers and see if they confirm the story. Then you should try to find some reputable witnesses that confirm that Ayers was working on the book.

Now if you're claiming all this stuff happened in secret and cannot be disovered, then your just a common conspiracy theorist.

Here's how it works. Whoever makes the claim brings the evidence. Obama claims he wrote the book, and I'll bet if you look, he has plenty of evidence to support it, in the form of notes and preliminary drafts. What has Cahill got, apart from a passionate hatred for Obama? Squat.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

And how is this known to be true, given that

http://blackamericans.com/blogs/new...er-affirmative-action-has-run-its-course.aspx

in a 2000 interview with the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Sen. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, said: "I have no way of knowing if I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the [Harvard Law] Review."

 

[Tricky]

And how is this known to be true, given that

http://blackamericans.com/blogs/new...er-affirmative-action-has-run-its-course.aspx

Sounds remarkably honest to me, unlike Clarence Thomas who benefitted from affirmative action programs but now repudiates them. By contrast, Obama shows his humility, admitting that he may not be as good as some people say he is. I'm surprised you find that a detriment to his character.

But the simplest evidence you could possibly have that Obama wrote his own book is to listen to Obama talk. He is fluid and articulate. He has a command of the language that is far above average. Now, speaking skills don't necessarily transpose to writing skills, but they are strongly correlated.

Also, you can't shut him up. That's the perfect temperment for a writer. No writer's block there.

 

[Meadmaker]

Where is the scandal here? Is Dreams From My Father promoting terrorist ideas, violence or how to build bombs?

No = Non issue.

Actually, in my opinion, if the allegation were true, that would give me serious pause about voting for Obama. It's not that I care that he used a ghostwriter. Most do. I don't care. It's not that he used a former terrorist as a ghostwriter. I really wouldn't care.

However, when the subject of his association with Ayers came up, he pretty much dismissed it as if Ayers were a distant associate with no real connection, except perhaps some previous connections on some common projects. I would consider it hugely dishonest if Obama had that close of a relationship with him, and denied it.

ETA: Just to clarify, I don't believe that Ayers wrote the book. I think it would be easy enough to figure it out if he had, and the people making the charges would produce the evidence.

 

[drkitten]

Can someone prove Jack's theory is flawed and without substance? I thought this guiy devoted lots of research into the subject. Have you guys? What are YOUR credentials to discredit this PH.D.?

Actually, I can, quite easily. Evidently, he wasn't as familiar with the expert he consulted as he thought -- or else he ignored what the expert told him, since Juola damns the particular method he uses (QSUM) in no uncertain terms in his book Authorship Attribution. (Easy enough to find, actually, since I think Juola makes it available on his website.)

Similarly, the argument-by-metaphorical similarity that he uses is well-known to be unreliable, which is why the statistical methods like QSUM (and some of the better methods that Juola has researched) were developed in the first place.

At best, this is an "argument from fuzzy Bigfoot photo"; not conclusive of anything useful at all. But since he evidently spoke to Juola (he quoted him, after all), he should at least be familiar with Juola's other work, including some methods that, while not perfect, are a hell of a lot more reliable. I'd be much more impressed if Jack ran the data through Juola's JGAAP program and got similar results. The fact that he evidently had better analyses available (more in-focus photos) and chose to run with the fuzzy ones doesn't bode well for the accuracy of his analysis.

 

[varwoche]

Okay, what if I tell you that only Jack has really seriously looked into this?

Suppose someone claims that McCain is going to nuke Spain. This person also claims to have really seriously looked into it.

Would this be worthy of consideration? If not why not?

 

[Meadmaker]

Suppose someone claims that McCain is going to nuke Spain. This person also claims to have really seriously looked into it.

Would this be worthy of consideration? If not why not?

McCain is going to nuke Spain? Well that does it. I'm voting for Obama.


I thought about this whole "Ayers as ghostwriter" scenario. I skimmed a brief article in a more or less credible source (on National Review Online) about the subject, and pretty much dismissed it, but figured that maybe, just maybe, there was something to it.

Then, skeptic mode kicks in. If it were true, or there were any reasonable evidence to support it, it wouldn't be all that difficult to verify, if you were willing to spend some time. Meanwhile, McCain is going full negative on the Ayers "issue". I'm pretty confident that he has staff with plenty of time to research Ayers. I'm pretty confident that if they had evidence that Ayers was Obama's ghostwriter, there would have been no qualms about mentioning it.

My conclusion: If it won't convince McCain, it won't convince me. I think it's a bunch of hooey.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You just don't get it. The guy worked really hard on it and stuff, it MUST be true.

Yeah, if by "worked really hard" you mean "made crap up out of whole cloth"

Seriously, to anyone making this claim - do you have any evidence beyond hearsay and blatantly political speculation?

ETA: If so, show it. Put up or shut up.

 

[332nd]

Can someone prove Jack's theory is flawed and without substance?

Dr. Kitten did a good job of that already.

I thought this guiy devoted lots of research into the subject. Have you guys?

No, I don't need to in this case.

What are YOUR credentials to discredit this PH.D.?

An MFA and years of study watching writers evolve and change their styles without letting my politics get in the way.

Are you discrediting him because you want Obama elected, no matter what?

No, Are you believing him because you don't want Obama elected no matter what?

 

[332nd]

Ah yes. There's the racist claim.

... Well, yes... Magz is a racist after all.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ah yes. There's the racist claim.

Ah yes, there's the inevitable howl of rage from the right 'cos someone called a racist a racist.

Tell us, what is the politically correct term for racists amongst you folks? "Differently opinioned", perhaps?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Even if his argument were excellent (and it's just the opposite), a claim like that needs evidence. He provides none.

Why do all the CT folks think Obama, a former editor, can't write?

I'd be more comfortable about the whole thing if someone could show me something he wrote for the Law Review. Not being a lawyer, and being fairly broke, I can't get access to the HLR back-issues, nor can I find an articles-in-print document.

Any leads, anybody? (NON-SNARKY! I'm serious about trying to get information from the HLR.)

 

[DrBaltar]

did you notice the question mark at the end of my words? (like that one). Do you know what that means? (there it is again).

It probably means you wish to make the racism assertion without technically calling him a racist.

I'm not a frequent reader of MaGZ's posts, so I don't know how much of a racist he is. But in this thread I didn't see it.

 

[BenBurch]

It probably means you wish to make the racism assertion without technically calling him a racist.

I'm not a frequent reader of MaGZ's posts, so I don't know how much of a racist he is. But in this thread I didn't see it.

He's no more a racist than Heinrich Himmler was.

 

[Puppycow]

Obama's writings as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago

Oh yeah, this guy can definately write very well. No question.

 

[Puppycow]

It probably means you wish to make the racism assertion without technically calling him a racist.

I'm not a frequent reader of MaGZ's posts, so I don't know how much of a racist he is. But in this thread I didn't see it.

Here

 

[varwoche]

Suppose someone claims that McCain is going to nuke Spain. This person also claims to have really seriously looked into it.

Would this be worthy of consideration? If not why not?

Since Iamme won't answer then I will:

No. Because it's bat guano crazy. (Wink wink, nudge nudge.)

Now, what if I was too naive to appreciate that the drivel MagZ is hyping is drivel. One thing I could quickly check is the credibility of the driveler (Cashill) on other matters. Is Cashill someone with a reputation for being factual, or maybe he spews insane conspiracy theories 24x7.

Uh oh. Guess what?

[With a sense of trepidation as if I'm about to say Beetlejuice for the third time] Cashill is a frothing lunatic who claims Clinton killed Ron Brown, even managing to connect Obama, and who places Hitler around the neck of Darwin. (Gotta love WND.)

What a sorry joke.

 

[GreyICE]

It probably means you wish to make the racism assertion without technically calling him a racist.

I'm not a frequent reader of MaGZ's posts, so I don't know how much of a racist he is. But in this thread I didn't see it.

He's a neo-nazi. You know, like this guy. Or this guy. They're people he's expressed admiration for.

I am not making this up.

Every Jew in this world is a potential Zionist who could sell his country out to that s****** state in the Middle East. Every Mossad agent knows this, and knows if he can convince him the survival of Israel is at stake, the Jew will betray his own country.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4109190#post4109190
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4115325#post4115325
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4121413#post4121413
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4101040#post4101040

 

[chillzero]

Guys, MaGZ and his world view are not the issue under discussion here. Please stick to topic.

 

[GreyICE]

On Topic, the concept that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's books is so completely laughable that the concept is pure pandering to people who accept it because of their ideology. No impartial observer examining the facts would ever reach that conclusion, so it is obviously driven by an agenda.

The sort of ideology and agenda that would find this convincing would probably make an interesting and totally different thread.