She rails on Jeff in a post entitled, “Epic Fail–Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s memoir“.
That’s kind of what I thought, too, but the critics liked it.
UPDATE: Here’s the thing: there wouldn’t be such questions regarding O! if he didn’t lie about that gun survey, if he didn’t lie about his relations with Ayers, if he didn’t lie about his connections with ACORN, if he didn’t lie about his Wall Street aspirations, if he didn’t lie about the nature of the work he did for a financial newsletter, if he would release his medical records, grades, if he weren’t hiding his thesis, if he didn’t claim he wasn’t around when Wright made those bizarre and racist speeches, if he didn’t claim he thought Ayers was rehabilitated, and on and on. Unfortunately, yeah, it’s bad enough that it makes almost anything seem plausible.
Also, from the one sample we’ve got, his poetry is crap, even by undergrad standards. Is not a man capable of such heinous verse capable of practically any vileness?
(waves)
That’s actually me, Dan.
I denounce that name. Whassupwitdat?
I really ought to stop otherizing her.
Pretty sure it’s a dude, which makes that name even more fucked in the head.
Sorry, Dan, I no longer read gay gossip site/anti-Semitic conspiracy newsletter The Atlantic (tm, Ace-o-Spades HQ), nor will I until they kick Excitable Andi to the curb.
STOP OTHERING ME!
(Seriously, Dan, that critical part is me. Ta-Nehisi links to The Corner. The rest is from my post. Just don’t want you and Jeff to think I’ll only criticize y’all behind your backs or whatnot.)
Ayers didn’t ghost-write Obama’s two autobiographies. I mean, it’s bad enough one of them was inspired by one of Wright’s racist screeds.
And, really, how much worse could it be than the fact that Ayers tapped Obama to head up a committee to funnel charity cash to his far-left buddies?
Billy Cunningham (Drudge’s radio heir) interviewing Jack Cashill on this right now.
Cashill’s piece is at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
I remember SEK.
He was the dim bulb trying to make Jeff morally equivalent to the creeps dancing on Tony Snow’s grave, because Jeff pointed them out for criticism.
Hang on every word gang, he’s a wise one…
Way to go lee, your memory is as wide as a shallow pond. (But thanks for playing.)
I remember SEK.
When trying to defend the Scott Beauchamp articles, he told us he had some knowledge of military matters because he’d had high school classmates who joined the military AND once had a roommate who’d been in the Army. Obviously a person who should be taken seriously.
(But thanks for playing.)
This must be an example of that academic discourse I hear so much about.
Nice coinage, there. Highly original and to the point.
Oh, and yer momma wears combat boots.
poppa, I thought it was because he’d read lots of Vietnam memoirs.
That is some stinging wit there SEK. Have mercy, I’m bleeding over here.
OTHER’D
No srsly, does Dan need to edit the post so you’re the one lacking the irony sense, SEK?
If you deconstruct Cashill’s name, you’ll find that it contains the words “cash” and shill.” “Cash” refers to paper bank notes which, in more robust times, could be exchanged for goods or services. A “shill,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “one who poses as a disinterested advocate of another but is actually of the latter’s party; a mouthpiece, a stooge.”
If you deconstruct Squat Erk Queefman’s name, you’ll find it contains “squat” and “queef”. Squat refers to bending the legs and lowering the ass which in more robust times could be exchanged for leftist accolades or gravitas. a “queef” according to the Urban Dictionary is “an expulsion of wind from the vulva during coitus; a vaginal fart.”
SEK is desperately hoping that BHO didn’t have any authorial help; his reaction is just another manifestation of the HOPEiness gene that Baracky’s presence caused to switch on in the beblindered leftosphere. SEK is just another one that the ‘Messiah’ touched. A wondrous thing, to be Messiah-touched.
After well-lettered Obama releases the rest of his writings, we’ll realize that of course he wrote the whole thing unaided. It’s just a matter of time until, I’m sure.
“Tennessee Coats”? Fuckin please….
That looks like fun, Gray.
Lessee..’Ta-Neshi Coates’ metaphones to ‘Nishi Goatse’.
There goes supper.
Writes SEK of my post:
And here’s how I used Cashill’s post as suggestive of “all the unsavory things” I “already believe about Obama”:
As you can see now that the post is excerpted with its description, the only suggestion I make about Obama is that, if Ayers wrote him, he’d be at least partially an Ayers construct.
As for the many unsavory things I believe about Obama, I’ve no difficulty expressing them in the appropriate context, so I have no need to invent reasons to do so — and didn’t in this post. Which is how I know SEK is learning to be a good little progressive blogger: why quote when you can merely link, confident that your readers won’t click over to check your work — or, if they’re progressives, that they’ll excuse and rationalize on your behalf?
Once again, SEK has proven himself to be a dishonest critic.
Par for the course for him since he’s interested himself in politics — but a course that will no doubt make him very popular among the Thersites set. You Go girl!
Ta-Goatse Farts:
Innumerable studies have found that giving your child an obviously made-up “african” name correlates with either criminal behavior, or becoming a head-fucked lefty columnist–with a sense of grievance and entitlement the size of Goatse’s anus.
Oh. And yes, I’m still sick; and yes, I know SEK will spend hours here picking nits and trying to justify his dishonesty; and no, I don’t care to participate in such a ridiculous back and forth.
You all will believe what you want. The evidence is in front of you. I have more pleasing things to do than spend my night engaging a guy who has turned into a royal douche. Like vomiting some more.
G’night.
Gray, first, let me say, if you think I was being the least bit serious in what you quoted, you’re an idiot with no sense of humor. Sure, take it out of context, and it looks like I’m being serious—but given that I mocked Cashill for his “deconstruction” above, it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that my “deconstruction” was meant to be equally idiotic. But, as I said, thanks for playing.
serr8d, you’ve said:
SEK is desperately hoping that BHO didn’t have any authorial help
What you fail to realize is that I don’t care one whit whether or not a politician’s autobiography was ghostwritten. In fact, I expect them to be. What I responded to was the ludicrous assertion—defended by the flimsiest of evidence—that Ayers was Obama’s ghost. But, yet again, thanks for playing.
poppa india, you’ve said:
When trying to defend the Scott Beauchamp articles, he told us he had some knowledge of military matters because he’d had high school classmates who joined the military AND once had a roommate who’d been in the Army. Obviously a person who should be taken seriously.
And it turns out that the people whose testimony you cited against Beauchamp were later court-martialed for killing unarmed prisoners. Now, that doesn’t prove that Beauchamp wasn’t lying, but it does prove my original point—namely, that otherwise good people sometimes lose it on the battlefield. But please, inform me as to how I’m hating on the troops by pointing out the obvious.
Spies, Brigands, and Pirates,
This must be an example of that academic discourse I hear so much about.
If you’d hung around here long enough, you’d know that that particular phrase is something of an inside joke between me and a couple of the regulars here. Which is why I’ve repeated it so often—by which I mean, like damn near every time I’ve posted. Feel free to search the archives. I’ll wait. Done yet? Now that you’re informed, do you care to acknowledge the obvious, or will you persist in being an ignorant ass? Who knows.*
*But thanks for playing.
Jeff, you really have hit bottom. You said, and you quoted:
If the charges are true…
Do you deny you drew conclusions from that premise? (Remember, if you do, I can quote you quoting yourself.)
oh, nice straw man you’ve got there.
By which I mean, I took you task for hypothesizing about what would happen if Cashill’s ridiculous claim were true, and, as you write, “if true . . . if true . . . if true . . . if true . . .”
Sick or no, do you feel like being accountable for your own conjectures, or would you rather play to your sycophantic crowd?
oh, nice straw man you’ve got there.
If by “straw man” you mean “person who confessed to doing what he was accused of, but whose actions I can understand—if not entirely forgive—given the situation he was in,” then yes, maggie, you’ve nailed me to the wall.
A tongue like a raper I tell you.
Poor bastards.
Never knew what hit them.
SEK, your peremptorily dismissive nature makes you seem afraid to hear what you’ve earned, and obviously come here to collect.
If you can’t stand the heat, don’t make molotovs. Some of Ayers’ buddies learned that the hard way.
no, SEK, I mean, nobody argued otherwise. Doesn’t have anything to do with Beauchamp making crap up.
Excellent, intelligent rebuttal lee. I concede the game to you.
serr8d:
SEK, your peremptorily dismissive nature makes you seem afraid to hear what you’ve earned, and obviously come here to collect.
Again, address the argument I’ve made. You claimed I’d be devastated if I learned Obama didn’t write his books. I said I woulnd’t, because I never expected him to. How, exactly, does that relate to what you said?
that otherwise good people sometimes lose it on the battlefield.
And the soldiers you cited where taken into custody, tried and punished for their actions. What is the difference between that and what Beauchamp described?
Now that you’re informed, do you care to acknowledge the obvious, or will you persist in being an ignorant ass?
So you’re arguing that a hackneyed cliche becomes transmogrified into original wit by dint of repetition?
Like, whatever, dude.
Did I do it right?
SEK: I didn’t cite anyone’s testimony against Beauchamp. I was thinking of those on this blog who have military experience and said they felt his stories sounded false. I feel their experience carries more weight then just knowing people who were in the military. And nowhere did I say anything about you hating on the troops.
You dismiss any notion that Baracky would use his favorite perfessor to aid in writing his book. You know, the one who launched his freakin’ career in his living room?
Ayers and Obama were close. Why wouldn’t Ayers help out when help was needed?
Whoa, never saw it coming!
Careful… he’s quick and he’s devastating.
Proceed at your own peril.
No.
Oh, and to save myself the trouble, let me repeat that again.
Forgot. It’s SEK. Better try once more.
You dismiss any notion that Baracky would use his favorite perfessor to aid in writing his book. You know, the one who launched his freakin’ career in his living room?
Actually, I dismiss the claim based on the evidence provided by Cashill, which is weak and unworthy of a seventh grader—but which Jeff saw fit to jump off of for some hypothesizing about what if Ayers wrote it, &c. I think that’s beneath him, and that were he not being so dogmatic, he would realize how pathetic Cashill’s argument was—sea imagery?—but because it was politically convenient, he used it to make a point.
And clever as his rebuttals will be, I think he knows this, and that having to align himself with such ignorant fools guts him—or, at least, I hope it does. Because the alternative is that he believes Cashill may have some sort of point, despite having written an “analysis” Jeff would’ve laughed out his classroom a few years back.
But I could be wrong. Jeff may just be an overeducated hack now. I would hope not, but who’s to say?
Like, whatever, dude.
Getting closer, yes?
How many times does it take before it begins to scintillate?
SEK: OMG WTF ARE ALL THESE TREES DOING HERE!?!
No.
Well then, since you don’t deny you drew conclusions from idiotic premises, there’s nothing more to be said. (I mean, unless I want to claim that George Wallace really wrote McCain’s autobiography, then insist on drawing conclusions from my dumb-as-shit premise.)
You’ve admitted that you think an argument you (formerly) wouldn’t have accepted from a student is a plausible place to start an analysis . . . which means you’re a hack. In my heart of hearts, I hope this is a politically convenient act, because you should know better than to suffer a fool like Cashill. If you don’t, well, good day, sir.
I know SEK will spend hours here picking nits and trying to justify his dishonesty; and no, I don’t care to participate in such a ridiculous back and forth.
Jeff certainly called that one correctly.
Jeff tapped some ass? Hey, hey, hey, chivalry aside, spill the beans! You actually been getting any?
Answer the wuestion!
SEK thinks that only hacks deal with hypotheticals, which makes him a simpleton I would reckon. Too bad, I used to think the boy had potential.
There’s a thin line separating Obama and Ayers.
If you concede that Obama could have used a ghostwriter, then why not Ayers? Who else then? Proximity, that’s a given. Similarity in their politics…why, they are nearly alike!
You’ll believe what you want, as usual, because you are in Camp Obama. Blinders, they fit you so well.
Oh, Jeff, I sent you a couple thousand hits, if past contests are any indication…
This reminds me of a fight described by Mark Twain in “Roughing It”
“Thrusting my nose firmly between his teeth, I threw him down heavily…on top of me.”
Go SEK, you got him right where you want him!
You’ve admitted that you think an argument you (formerly) wouldn’t have accepted from a student is a plausible place to start an analysis
Where did he “admit” that?
The characterization of the argument as “one he (formerly) wouldn’t have accepted from a student” is entirely yours.
Like, petitio principii, dude.
(I hope that little change-up in the phrase doesn’t detract from its growing wittiness, but I’m willing to post it a few more times if necessary).
I read somewhere that Darth Vader helped ghost-write chapter 12 (I believe), which appeals to me. Obama putting on Darth’s helmet and mindset while hacking away at the keyboard is a good image.
Might make it more worth a complete read if Darth and Ayers actually did help write it.
I have to agree with SEK on this one. Jeff was participating in the slime Obama blizzard.
The Repubs don’t have issues so they toss poo. What was the silly season has entered the poo season.
You, my friend, are a complete nut case.
Doesn’t answering something this “bad” just validate it?
Thor, I’m not now, nor ever will be, your friend.
Fuck off.
“The Repubs don’t have issues so they toss poo.”
And no one understands poo quite like the Dems?
So if McCain got his early education from John Birchers that wouldn’t concern you and to raise a question about that would be slinging poo? Watch where you’re step.
ing
I mean, using text they perceive as ridiculous for a jumping-off point for a serious, critical piece isn’t solely the province of left-leaning scholars, is it?
I’m not quite getting why SEK finds the suggestion that a politician might’ve used a ghost writer absurd on its face.
It’s happened before, SEK. Really.
Is there something special about Obama that makes him less likely than other pols to have had a little help with his autobiographies? Certainly his (nearly non-existent) publication record provides no clear evidence that suggests otherwise.
There was much amateur and scholarly speculation that JFK (another Harvard Law grad, let us note) had Theodore Sorenson write most of Profiles in Courage, speculation which was based on techniques of textual analysis similar to the ones which Cashill appears to be using.
Ultimately Sorenson confirmed that he had, in fact, written most of the book. [1]
Since everyone (other than SEK, apparently) knows that politicians employ ghostwriters, the suggestion that Obama may have also employed one hardly seems like the sort of hypothesis that should be dismissed out of hand if raised by a student (at least not in any university I’d want to attend, or teach in — perhaps things are different in SEK’s neck of the woods).
Assuming that we’re willing, pro tempore, to discount the notion that Obama is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and at least permit the notion of ghost authorship to jab its nose into the tent of academe, discussion of the probable or possible identity of the ghost author is the obvious next stage.
Let me close by making my new, irrefutable argument: like, whatever, dude. [2]
[1] Sorensen, Ted. Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History. Harper, 2008.
[2] Thanks for that technique, SEK! I really need to practice it more.
Correcting my own mistake: JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, but his degree was in International Affairs, not law.
SEK, I’ll myself, not as any reference to anything JeffG said, address your dismissal of sea-imagery as ludicrously weak and seventh grade-ish. I think you decided that because you want to weaken what is, by intuition, one of the strongest hints besides style and form, that Ayers had some hand in drafting the prose.
I think you deliberately or arbitrarily avoid the context and history behind the comparison, because that would weaken your criticism.
When I reached a tipping point from utter skepticism into being persuaded of possibility, I’m sure
you have no interest.
What comparison of Dreams and Ayers writings have you done yourself? The hard work of nailing down the other things that would have to be true, has been done. Have you sincerely tried to compare their works?
N.B. I find find Cashill’s thesis interesting, but not persuasive at this stage. My gut instinct is that yes, the book was ghost-written. By Ayers? I’m not convinced of that.
Some time ago, I suggested a potentially fruitful avenue for further research over on The Pub.
That’s not really the point, though, since Jeff’s piece doesn’t turn on on whether Ayers (or anyone) ghost-wrote Obama’s book, and only someone suffering from deliberate jugheadedness could pretend that it does.
How is the evidence weak? The books show a great deal of similarity.
Plus, Barack Obama called Bill Ayers an “English Professor.” Easy to see how Obama could get mixed up, given that Ayers wrote his book for him.
I mean, unless I want to claim that George Wallace really wrote McCain’s autobiography
Almost forgot. I wanted to break out this “analogy” (if it can be dignified with that term) and hold it up to public ridicule…er…examine it more closely.
The analogy fails due to a few niggling little details.
1) Ayers and Obama are friends, long-time colleagues, gay lovers, co-chairs of the Hyde Park Elementary PTA Bake Sale and Nail Bomb Committee — whatever today’s ever-shifting pravda happens to be, it’s clear that they have a long-term association of some kind. No such relationship between McCain and Wallace is in evidence or, indeed, seems plausible. Wallace was a state-level politician from the south, a Democrat, and an ardent segregationist for most of his life. McCain’s career has been in the federal government, he is from the west, has always been a Republican, and has no history of supporting segregation. Wallace’s political career ended in 1987, McCain’s began in 1982.
2) Ayers is a published writer, whose advice and help might well be sought out by a young acquaintance. Wallace, to the best I can determine, never published anything. Thus, it’s unlikely that he would be sought out as a ghost writer, even assuming that one were simpatico with his repellant beliefs (which, as shown in 1) above, is highly unlikely in McCain’s case).
In short, your analogy was, like, totally bogus, dude.
SEK proclaimeth to JeffG:
Well then, since you don’t deny you drew conclusions from idiotic premises, there’s nothing more to be said
I’d say that you’re a dishonest idiot if you think this is even remotely valid as an argument.
So there are some more things to be said. Sucks to be you, I guess.
SEK
being so dogmatic, he would realize how pathetic Cashill’s argument wasâ€â€sea imagery?â€â€but because it was politically convenient, he used it to make a point.
The remaining ultra-right highly partisan propagandist GOP does it with great frequency now.
Nut cases are them.
Berg is used for birth certificate story , A,Martin( super anti-Semite)note no squeamishness at all for Ayers , now that Cashlill guy . I think they would kiss Ahmadinejad right into the unwashed penis, if he would declared some kind of controversial info on Obama.
Seems like all the NRO staff ( without listing nut blogs, like MAlkin,Ace LGF etc.) gone bonkers with their retarded boss-Goldberg.
That’s the absurd part right there, S,B&P. That’s like discounting God and questioning His authorship of The Bible. Or something.
Ready when you are, Scott!
Except that Beauchamp started making shit up before he got near any battlefield. Are you another proponent of pre-traumatic stress syndrome?
And it’s likely made of latex.
Quit talking out your ass.
SEK’s not the only one with this peculiar mental handicap: remember the bleating about Palin not having written her own speech? It’s as if those people think Obama wrote his.
Barky seems more of a bareback kinda guy, especially if he’s catching!
Ah, the Sashal Sockpuppet popped in again, I see…
Ah, good, another imbecile drops by, just to be Trollhammered. Nice to see you, SEK…oh wait, I won’t be seeing you again :)
If I haven’t said it before, my eternal thanks to Spies, et al for taking out the trash.
SEK –
Jeff was commenting on something his commenters brought to him. I did, and I was curious to hear his take on it.
Nowhere does he accuse Obama of anything. Instead, Jeff was restrained and thoughtful, taking the hypothetical and, while maintaining the hypothetical, addressing the implications.
That you have commented on a commentary derived from an article quoting original work at second hand would like as not make you the hack. I do not believe Jeff finds the possibility overly important, esp. in the context of an election, except for two words which should provide all the answer your ilk need to understand the context:
“Tanning bed”.
Tanning beds are notoriously corrupt, exploiting the skin’s melanin!
Spies, you are some kind of stupid. I wrote:
You claimed I’d be devastated if I learned Obama didn’t write his books. I said I wouldn’t, because I never expected him to.
You said I think:
I’m not quite getting why SEK finds the suggestion that a politician might’ve used a ghost writer absurd on its face.
Now, I make it quite clear that it’s not absurd—on its face or otherwise—that Obama would’ve used a ghostwriter. I said it was absurd, based on the “evidence” Cashill presented, to claim that the ghostwriter might be Bill Ayers. There’s no “on its face” about it. I evaluated the “evidence” presented, and found it unserious in the extreme.
Which means everything following what I’ve quoted up there was completely and utterly irrelevant. Esp. this part:
In short, your analogy was, like, totally bogus, dude.
That’s simply stupid, because my analogy was meant to be. That’s why I called it, and I quote, “my dumb-as-shit premise.”
There’s some wicked stupid in the air of here lately. You do know what words mean, don’t you Spies?
Spin away, SEK.
I think it’s obvious to everyone who is “some kind of stupid” here.
I said it was absurd, based on the “evidence†Cashill presented, to claim that the ghostwriter might be Bill Ayers.
Oh, and why, exactly, is it “absurd” to claim this?
Cashill’s thesis may be unpersuasive or insufficiently supported by evidence (indeed, I said exactly that above), but “absurd”?
I think not.
Means, motive, opportunity. They’re all there.
absurd: adj.
1) utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.
You do know what words mean, don’t you SEK? ‘Cause you appear have some personal definition of “absurd” to which the rest of us are not privy.
[…] I told SEK last evening in the comments to Dan’s post, I have no trouble articulating “all the unsavory […]
Poor SEK. Getting beaten like a drum on this, aren’t you.
Admit it: it was YOU who looked for the political “in” here to make hay. So proud of your success at doing so, in fact, you even came here to brag. Unfortunately, my post stands in opposition to how you described it, even without urthshu helpfully providing the context (above) for its composition.
Not only that, but had you bothered to read through the comments of that original post, you might have saved yourself further embarrassment.
But I guess it’s better to be king of the “George’s” than an honest and thoughtful critic. So much hard work involved in the latter…
Cashill’s thesis may be unpersuasive or insufficiently supported by evidence (indeed, I said exactly that above), but “absurd�
The claim that Obama’s memoir was written by Ayers is, in fact, absurd. I know what that word means. If you don’t think that claim is absurd, then you’ve absolutely no sense of reality.
(I’ll note that you’ve decided to ignore all the evidence I presented that you fundamentally misread what I said, presumably because it doesn’t speak to your interpretive credibility.)
The claim that Obama’s memoir was written by Ayers is, in fact, absurd.
Hint: simply asserting something doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times you do it.
I know what that word means
No, you don’t. Sorry.
Why?
Why?
If you really need me to answer this, you’ve lost touch with reality.
If you really need me to answer this, you’ve lost touch with reality.
Translation: you have no response.
Uh…. “thanks for playing”?
Did I do that right? I’m still a novice at that.
Spies and Jeff, give me one good reason to think there’s a chance that of all the people in the entire world, Ayers is the one who ghostwrote Obama’s books. I mean, first prove to me that Obama’s books were ghostwritten. Then find a single shred of evidence that Ayers has ghostwritten other people’s books. Then provide some evidence that he ghostwrote Obama’s.
I can wait.
Still not quite clear on the meaning of “absurd”, I see.
Spies, you’re a joke. I gave you three hoops to jump through. If you can prove that all three points are even plausible, I’ll grant that the idea isn’t absurd. So far, the only plausible one is the first—the one you mistakenly believed I thought was implausible, i.e. that Obama’s books were ghostwritten. The other two keep this well in the realm of the absurd. I suppose it’s plausible that Ayers is a ghostwriter, but given the utter absence of evidence, I’m not inclined to grant that. (I mean, Bobby Brown wrote a book, so I suppose it’s plausible that he wrote Obama’s memoirs, but I’m not inclined to grant that either.)
I gave you three hoops to jump through.
Too bad that none of them are necessary to show that thesis that Ayers might have ghost-written Obama’s book is not “absurd”.
But do keep shifting those goalposts, SEK.
You’re not exactly covering yourself with glory here, my friend.
Oh, what the hell. Here are your “three goalposts” (and yes, “plausible” is enough to refute your claim of absurdity).
1) Obama’s book was ghostwritten. You admit this is plausible.
2) Ayers has ghostwritten other books. You also admit this is plausible, though it’s not necessary to show this in any case. Are you claiming that ghostwriters spring fully formed from the womb or something like that? I mean, every ghostwriter has a first book, right?
3) Ayers was the ghostwriter for Obama’s book. That remains to be seen, but it’s certainly not impossible, hence not “absurd”.
You lose, SEK. Again.
From the SEK dictionary:
SEK proclaimed:
“The claim that Obama’s memoir was written by Ayers is, in fact, absurd.”
JeffG asked:
“Why?”
SEK proclaimeth:
“If you really need me to answer this, you’ve lost touch with reality.”
How convenient.
Which fallacy is this one? Argument from incredulity?
I think it’s “argument from having your ass handed to you and then running away”, Rob.
1) Obama’s book was ghostwritten. You admit this is plausible.
2) [Bobby Brown] has ghostwritten other books. You also admit this is plausible, though it’s not necessary to show this in any case. Are you claiming that ghostwriters spring fully formed from the womb or something like that? I mean, every ghostwriter has a first book, right?
3) [Bobby Brown] was the ghostwriter for Obama’s book. That remains to be seen, but it’s certainly not impossible, hence not “absurdâ€Â.
You see why I think your argument holds no water?
No. I see you trotting out another of your patented strained analogies. Bobby Brown doesn’t have a long-term association with Obama. Ayers does.
Means. Motive. Opportunity. All three are present with Ayers and Obama. None are present with Brown and Obama.
Try harder, SEK. All you’re doing is making yourself look even more foolish than you already have.
Oh, and like, whatever, dude.
Holy shit…Barack Obama started his political career in Bobby Brown’s living room? I had no idea.
That’s a little-known fact, Jeremy. Bobby Brown also served on numerous boards with Obama, Whitney Houston worked at the same law firm as Michelle, the Browns and Obamas lived within a couple of blocks of each other, and Brown let Obama hand out $150 million of his money.
The parallels are uncanny!
I asked why it was “absurd” to think as much, SEK.
Granted, it’s more absurd than arguing that Karl Rove was feeding Bush debate answers through a transmitter, but still, the question stands nevertheless.
Oh, that’s not even possible.
Not so, Rob. “Infinity plus 1” and all that.
Put it this way, SEK: You are an English teacher. A student turns in a poem about fig-eating apes under the sea. It doesn’t rhyme–in fact, it’s just awful. Then the student turns in…nothing, nothing, nothing. Then the student turns in a novel-length “autobiography” replete with pretty phrases and polished writing. “Oh, ho!” you say to yourself…
1) “I’ll need the rough drafts of this–in fact, rough drafts of anything except that terrible ape-fig poem–before I believe this is actually the student’s own work!” or…
2) “Wow, what a great student!”
I’m pretty sure there’s an asymptotic limit to foolishness.
You’re not in academia, are you, Rob?
Foolishness is magical, and thus infinite. This is why there’s no such thing as “foolproof.”
I’m thinkin SEK is attributing demigod like charachteristics to the one true Obama and can’t stand to see him doubted. In that case then of course it’s absurd.
But the rest of us know that the demigod Obama is all too human and even if he did write himself it really doesn’t matter cause he’s lied through his teeth on other stuff and isn’t very loyal to his friends. Not like grandpa at all, who hung in there under some really tough times.yep.
I’m pretty sure there’s an asymptotic limit to foolishness.
Alas, Rob. No. God in his infinite wisdom keeps on making more resourceful fools. I have concluded, in my old age, that the Almighty has done this to teach the rest of us patience. And so He can have a good laugh.