Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HistorianDude is correct: I was ignorant. I had never heard of any of those associates from Obama's time at University of Chicago. And, I'll wager, neither had anyone else.
And that was my point here. How much effort did any of the media spend, looking into and publishing this sort of thing? There was nothing unusual here, of course... just a number of people who said they had met him, or worked with him etc., and describing him as a basic nice guy.
Most of them had little real influence on Obama or his upbringing, save possibly a few of the faculty. Again, that's not unusual.
But, as I have also pointed out, during a Presidential campaign, everything down to your underwear size gets dug up and exposed, blasted all over the news media.
I just did a little quickie experiment - one that should be expanded. But here, I just took one of these associates' names, an unusual one so I wouldn't turn up hits on unrelated persons who happened to have the same name.
Into Google, I put:
"Elysia Solomon" Obama
...to see how many mentions of these two names together, have occurred in the Internet (which includes virtually all published articles, stories, Facebook pages, and all the rest).
I got a total of 9 hits. One of them was the article that HistorianDude cited.
Then I picked another person who also ran in that same Presidential campaign season of 2008, and also the name of someone distantly associated who had little real direct influence on the candidate's life.
Into Google, I put:
"Levi Johnston" "Sarah Palin"
I got 1,740,000 hits.
As I said, when you're running in a Presidential campaign in today's America, EVERYTHING will be dug up about you, even distant associations, and will be blasted all over the media, in every conceivable format. The huge number of hits I got from the second search, is not out of the ordinary, or not much.
But my original question remains: Why the almost airtight, 100% blackout on media coverage of Barack Obama's early associations, however distant?
As we now know (mostly through the efforts of NON mainstream journalists and pundits, which the mainstream channels only picked up on months later after it had been rammed down their throats all those months), some of Obama's early associates have turned out to be thugs, socialists, hate-spewing racists and bigots, and even known terrorists who have tried to kill people. Shouldn't this be considered "newsworthy"? Especially in a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? Or was this astonishingly airtight blackout, simply someone's "mistake", as Huckleberry is trying to describe his part of it?
As I said, this search should be expanded, and Obama's other "minor" associates' coverage also measured.
Does ANYONE think that the number of media references to any of them in association with Barack Obama, will be anywhere near the number of media references to most other candidates' (or at least Republican candidates') early associations, however distant?
HistorianDude, thank you for helping to prove my point here, by providing associations I could check and compare to other candidates' associations, and the media coverage thereof. I owe you a beer.
HistorianDude is correct: I was ignorant. I had never heard of any of those associates from Obama's time at University of Chicago. And, I'll wager, neither had anyone else.
And that was my point here. How much effort did any of the media spend, looking into and publishing this sort of thing? There was nothing unusual here, of course... just a number of people who said they had met him, or worked with him etc., and describing him as a basic nice guy.
Most of them had little real influence on Obama or his upbringing, save possibly a few of the faculty. Again, that's not unusual.
But, as I have also pointed out, during a Presidential campaign, everything down to your underwear size gets dug up and exposed, blasted all over the news media.
I just did a little quickie experiment - one that should be expanded. But here, I just took one of these associates' names, an unusual one so I wouldn't turn up hits on unrelated persons who happened to have the same name.
Into Google, I put:
"Elysia Solomon" Obama
...to see how many mentions of these two names together, have occurred in the Internet (which includes virtually all published articles, stories, Facebook pages, and all the rest).
I got a total of 9 hits. One of them was the article that HistorianDude cited.
Then I picked another person who also ran in that same Presidential campaign season of 2008, and also the name of someone distantly associated who had little real direct influence on the candidate's life.
Into Google, I put:
"Levi Johnston" "Sarah Palin"
I got 1,740,000 hits.
As I said, when you're running in a Presidential campaign in today's America, EVERYTHING will be dug up about you, even distant associations, and will be blasted all over the media, in every conceivable format. The huge number of hits I got from the second search, is not out of the ordinary, or not much.
But my original question remains: Why the almost airtight, 100% blackout on media coverage of Barack Obama's early associations, however distant?
As we now know (mostly through the efforts of NON mainstream journalists and pundits, which the mainstream channels only picked up on months later after it had been rammed down their throats all those months), some of Obama's early associates have turned out to be thugs, socialists, hate-spewing racists and bigots, and even known terrorists who have tried to kill people. Shouldn't this be considered "newsworthy"? Especially in a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? Or was this astonishingly airtight blackout, simply someone's "mistake", as Huckleberry is trying to describe his part of it?
As I said, this search should be expanded, and Obama's other "minor" associates' coverage also measured.
Does ANYONE think that the number of media references to any of them in association with Barack Obama, will be anywhere near the number of media references to most other candidates' (or at least Republican candidates') early associations, however distant?
HistorianDude, thank you for helping to prove my point here, by providing associations I could check and compare to other candidates' associations, and the media coverage thereof. I owe you a beer.
i am trying to get obama out of the office i helped put him in. we gota do better than this OP. this falls short of electric news. his background is locked down & that has to be cracked. u cant defeat a fictional character in an election.
Sorry but you aren't going to "Do Better" with the current line up on the GOP side....but good luck in 2016!! LOL
a person who attended obama's class and had 2 sentences to say about it vs a man that knocked-up sarah's daughter and wrote a tell-all book about the family?
HistorianDude is correct: I was ignorant. I had never heard of any of those associates from Obama's time at University of Chicago. And, I'll wager, neither had anyone else.
And that was my point here. How much effort did any of the media spend, looking into and publishing this sort of thing?
This is hilarious, you have been proved not just wrong, but badly, obliviously outrageously wrong... and you are still trying to pretend you were right.
And this is what characterizes the Obama haters. They do not even care whether what they say is wrong or right, true or false. They could not possible care less when their claims are destroyed. It never mattered to them if they were true in the first place.
Their posts are exposed to be what they are; baseless, dishonest and malicious smears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
There was nothing unusual here, of course... just a number of people who said they had met him, or worked with him etc., and describing him as a basic nice guy.
Hold that thought, because it's actually important. It tells us a lot about the hand waving we're about to get from Small Seed. Yes... there is nothing unusual here. Hardly the sort of stuff that is likely to go viral. And that is a great disappointment to the Obama haters.
What they were hoping for, what they wishing for was something lurid and sordid... tales of horrid behavior that they could use to further their fictional narrative. Instead, they get what they would get for most good people. Nothing unusual.
So... in the face of that disappointment, they move the goal posts and try some other way to make silk out of the sow's ear that is the exposure of their malicious ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
I just did a little quickie experiment - one that should be expanded. But here, I just took one of these associates' names, an unusual one so I wouldn't turn up hits on unrelated persons who happened to have the same name.
Into Google, I put:
"Elysia Solomon" Obama
...to see how many mentions of these two names together, have occurred in the Internet (which includes virtually all published articles, stories, Facebook pages, and all the rest).
I got a total of 9 hits. One of them was the article that HistorianDude cited.
Then I picked another person who also ran in that same Presidential campaign season of 2008, and also the name of someone distantly associated who had little real direct influence on the candidate's life.
Into Google, I put:
"Levi Johnston" "Sarah Palin"
I got 1,740,000 hits.
What other response is warranted than... duh?
Ignoring that a google search tells you what the Internet was talking about, not what the media was talking about, Levi Johnson was first and foremost (almost) closely related to Sarah Palin. You get 1,7400,000 hits for that search, and roughly the same order of magnitude for an equally close relations of Obama. "Ann Dunham" "Barack Obama" yields 714,000 hits.
But more to the point, the father of Sarah Palin's illegitimate grandchild is actually newsworthy. Whereas Obama's students and teachers were "nothing unusual," the fact that Sarah Palin, an advocate of premarital sexual abstinence had a daughter pregnant out of wedlock was absolutely unusual. And the absolutely unusual gets talked about.
A similar google search on "Bill Ayers" "Barack Obama" yields 1,014,000 hits. So, if that is the basis Small Seed wants to use to judge coverage, the Obamahater meme that he was not vetted or covered is shown to be just another example of willful ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
But my original question remains: Why the almost airtight, 100% blackout on media coverage of Barack Obama's early associations, however distant?
What we have revealed here is not that there was any "airtight, 100% blackout on media coverage of Barack Obama's early associations," but that there has certainly been an airtight, 100% blackout on the effort by Obama haters in general (and Small Seed in particular) to find out if anything they say is actually true. Blame it on whatever you choose. Laziness, sloppiness, dishonesty, maliciousness, stupidity... pick your poison.
But the problem is not that there is nothing known about the president's past. It is that the president's past is completely inconvenient to the right-wing lie.
On another note....The WayBack Machine shows the site creation date as 09-2010
So if this this info was readily available way back then, where was it?
That question would be answered by the amazingly counter intuitive (and mysterious I know to conservatives) action of clicking on the links to see the original sources.
Insert "Duh" here.
The Fogbow simply has a special report where somebody assembled links to all the sources for the purpose of proving the right-wing lie to actually be a right wing lie.
It's called a good old fashioned, major league, grade A debunking.
That question would be answered by the amazingly counter intuitive (and mysterious I know to conservatives) action of clicking on the links to see the original sources.
Insert "Duh" here.
The Fogbow simply has a special report where somebody assembled links to all the sources for the purpose of proving the right-wing lie to actually be a right wing lie.
It's called a good old fashioned, major league, grade A debunking.
You need to get some class back in the presidency. The dead give away regarding Obama and his dear wife that they did not understand what having class was...When the first lady started patting the Queen of ENGLAND on the back like she was petting a dog...You do not touch the QUEEN....Not that this has any real significance but it did show a lack of understanding of a sytem...I don't believe that the last few presidents know how the power structures of the world operate...and who might be in charge of old institutions that still prevail...
Do I have to do everything for you? Follow the links and check the dates on the articles.
I mean, really... I've already demonstrated that you were ignorant. Do you you really need me to also show that you are lazy?
No need. Would you like for someone to demonstrate that you are ignorant, arrogant, and a lazy follower of the messiah? I think that a little bit of humility would also befit the messiah, instead of the ridicule he constantly doles out, but can scarcely take. I suspect that you would bristle at the dishback, also.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows that honest coverage of his campaign and presidency is woefully lacking in the traditional media.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
