I don't care, WHO, wrote this. It DESERVES A RE-PRINT.

1. 59

   OLYHOOCHposted 12 years ago

   I don't care, WHO, wrote this. It DESERVES A RE-PRINT, for those of you that did not see it.
   
   WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA
   Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.
   ___________________________
   I too have become disillusioned.
   By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
   Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
   
   Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
   
   He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
   
   Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
   
   Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
   
   Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
   
   Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
   
   And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
   
   What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
   
   The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
   
   And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
   
   In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
   
   OLY

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oly, good to see you're reading the Washington Post. However, I'm disappointed in your selection of a hatchet job article about Obama citing weeney, neocon, John Podhoretz.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well, My Dad Told me once, Ya Gotta take the BAD, with the GOOD.
         
         That is how I was raised.
         
         I don't write them. I just post them
         
         OLY

         replyreport
         1. 77

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Whether they are under copyright or not.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Take me to Jail. You worry too much. I have, NEVER, had any question of what I post from any of them.
               
               If it is OK with them, it is OK with me.
               
               OLY

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not okay with them. This is a syndicated article and the Post owns the copyright.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I have, Freedom Of Speech...... Nobody cares about that. I have the Right to, Keep and Bear Arms........ Nobody cares about that.
                     
                     And you know how I fell about, POLITACLY CORRECTNESS.
                     
                     OLY

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        As writers we have the right to not have our labor exploited by people without permission or compensation.  So make free with your own speech, not someone else's.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Well then, May I suggest, you turn me in. Please have them, contact me by E-mail.
                           
                           I will in return make a full apology to whom ever toes I stepped on.
                           
                           That is the only, COMPENSATION, I find redeemable for you at this time.
                           
                           OLY

                           replyreport
            2. 84

               kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I believe it is okay since he provided the source (although a link and author would have been a much more 'solid' source).

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well OLY your post reveals you to be just another dupe who fell for the latest right-wing eRumor.
            
            The Truth: 
            This is a real article called " The Affirmative Action President" written by Matt Patterson, which appeared on the conservative opinion web site American Thinker on August 18, 2011.   
            
            http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/ … ident.html
            
            The article did not appear in the Washington Post and according to a November 4, 2011 opinion in the Washington Post there are no writers employed at that newspaper by the name of Matt Patterson.
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 59

               OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well, Thank you for finding it, Wizard. At least we know it is someehere, out there.
               
               OLY

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      One of the best twisty twiney opinion articles I ever read. However, it is not too hard to understand the thrust of the authors dislike for the President and how he missed any objective critisism that could be expounded upon. I got a few such as the lack of accountability towards any punishment of the Wall Street culprits. Or the lobbyists thinly veiled access to jobs and access against campaign promisses. Or the inability to come up with some sort of budget concessions to balance the budget. Or the closing of Gitmo as another failed campaign promise.I thought journalism had to at least have a hint of neutrality in it. Instead the author rants about his intelligence, racial insensitivity and socialist agenda that has no ascertainable proof.
      
      If he wishes to pick on the President pick on something he has done not what the author thinks the President thinks. I thought journalism had to have at least have a hint of neutrality to it. This article is more like a rant you would see from some others you might find in these Hub Pages.
      
      Romney wants to exercise the same insanity by repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you talking to me? I thought you would have caught my sarcasm. No I don't want the GOP implant to get in and make it worse in the long run while he performs for his oligarchal handlers.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I told you guys, 2012 Election was going to be one like, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN.
         
         OLY

         replyreport
   3. 51

      VetteRunnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oly,
      Great article and the comments are a great Wild Weasel--smoking out the way the liberal "mind" works.
      Can't discuss how singularly unqualified the man is for t the office, so just telling you why you're not allowed to post this.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Or because it's a valid issue.....
         
         And unsubstantiated comments like "Obama isn't qualified" are why conservatives by and large can't be trusted...

         replyreport
         1. 84

            kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Is there no substance in an entire article with valid citations, then?
            
            Your generalizations sicken me. And I'm not even conservative.
            
            Citing an article is a valid issue, if he didn't cite it. But he did. He said exactly where he got the article from.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, I was responding more to the fact that Vetterunner was trying to say that the copyright issue was only raised because the article was anti-Obama, when in fact it was a valid issue.
               
               And when I say "you can't trust conservatives" it is a comment on the political leaders/right-wing media in this country.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You can't trust the media. Period.
                  
                  All media outlets have an agenda, oftentimes fueled by money. It isn't limited to conservatives.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Agreed, however, it seems like people simply keep saying that Obama is unqualified without really being able to back that up with anything substantive.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Same goes for the other way around. Did you see the thread about how Romney was mentally ill?
                        
                        This article gives more substantial facts, and seems to look at things from an objective point of view, rather than defensive or hateful. I was rather impressed with this article. I usually don't bother to read most of the other political propaganda all the way through.

                        replyreport
            2. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If you had read the whole thread you would see the attribution is bogus.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  OLYHOOCH got it from the Washington Post. The citation is good enough for me. Whether it was "properly attributed" is a whole different discussion, which quite frankly, is spam.
                  
                  I was referring to the article, and how it cites what several people and organizations say.
                  
                  This is the point of a topic of discussion, right? To discuss the topic mentioned in the original post, right?
                  
                  Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm inclined to agree with OLY, at least to the point where there's at minimum some amount of truth to this, at the notion that Liberal Obama supporters are avoiding the topic by picking at his/her writing skills instead.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     If you read the thread you would know it is not actually from the Washington Post and that claim is fraudulent.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Does not dispute the fact that this thread was intended to discuss that article.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           You were discussing this as if it was a real Washington Post article by a real journalist.  I was piping up that this was untrue.
                           
                           That is all.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              So sorry, but you have no means of judging just exactly 'as if' I was discussing this article. I never said it was true, and I also never said it was false. I merely stated that it was an interesting point of view, and it's nice to have a different point of view for a change. And that the article cites its sources within text. Whether or not the sources are legitimate is completely off topic from the point of this discussion. That is all.

                              replyreport
2. 65

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Romney is as incompetent and you can't wait to vote for him! What does make you? Maybe you need a columnist from the New York Times to enlighten you?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You like your, HOPE and CHANGE, Do Ya. You want 4 more yars of it???? Go for it.
      
      OLY

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you need to re-read the last line of my post.

      replyreport
3. 72

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   "Fair Use" of an article in a forum is a small excerpt and a link.
   
   
   Do not post copyrighted materials (articles, videos, audio, etc.) that you do not have permission to reproduce or distribute. For text articles, most of the time you may quote a small portion of the article (usually no more than 1/5 or 1/6) and you must link to the source (if online) or provide the source (if offline). Posting the entire article, even with the source, constitutes copyright infringement.
   
   http://www.managingcommunities.com/2010 … -articles/

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. That's good information. I've been a frequent violator! Will try to curb my enthusiasm. The problem with just posting links is that many people don't bother accessing the linked articles.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Aficionadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's when it helps to provide just the right kind of teasers in the quoted material that will spur readers to click on the link.  It might even be more effective than pasting the full article.  Sometimes a wall of text in a forum post is intimidating and not particularly interesting to readers; and it can be difficult to sort out which part is quoted and which part is commentary by the posting Hubber.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            When I ran across this, there was no link. I went and found it. I posted it below.
            
            You guys know as per rule, I add a LINK.
            
            OLY

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Aficionadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               OLY, did you see that I was responding specifically to Ralph? He expressed concern that readers might not follow a link he posted (and that was why he might tend to post an entire article); and so I commented on his concern and added a suggestion of my own. You are entitled to take anything personally, if you wish, but I was not directing my comment at you.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No problem. I am always goofing up.
                  
                  OLY

                  replyreport
         2. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That makes sense to me.

            replyreport
      2. 59

         OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Here is what I came up with,,,,,,
         http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/t … n-2601863/
         
         OLY

         replyreport
      3. 76

         Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Uhh... so I guess sales people should just steal money out of your bank account if they show you a product brochure and you don't buy?
         
         Or if you drop your best line on a chick at the bar and she says, "Piss off," I guess a roofie is a perfectly reasonable next step.
         
         Just, wow, dude.

         replyreport
4. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   The link deals with attribution, but not fair use.  that would require posting only an excerpt--one rule of thumb being not more than 5% of the total work.

   replyreport
5. 68

   Charles Jamesposted 12 years ago

   I never thought I would be supporting Oly!
   
   Provided Oly credits the source and quotes accurately he will not normally be in breach of copyright to quote from an article or even to copy the whole article.
   
   Come on Oly - how about just one hub to show you are not really a freeloader on the rest of us!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank You, Charles. Looks like this issue is getting around. Just in, From another GROUP,,,, NOT HUBS....... And I have PERMISSION, to use what I am about to post.
      
      
      ‎"Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama!"
      
      Never appeared in the Post. The author"may" have contributed opinion pieces but this article did not. No Matt Patterson listed as employed and a search at the Post comes up blank.
      
      "The
      article did not appear in the Washington Post and according to a November 4, 2011 opinion in the Washington Post there are no writers employed at that newspaper by the name of Matt Patterson."
      
      http://​www.truthorfiction.com/​rumors/p/​Matt-Patterson-Post.htm
      
      "Hundreds of conservative sites linking to this remarkable article. But what you won’t get is any evidence that the article every actually ran in The Washington Post."
      
      http://​smokingpolitics.com/2011/​11/04/​yes-it-would-have-been-amaz​ing-if-the-washington-post​-had-printed-it/
      
      Not a Post columnist.
      
      http://www.snopes.com/​politics/soapb … mative.asp
      
      There's a reason why you get that crap in email forwards....... Its not credible information.
      
      OLY
      
      
      
      
      
      Washington Post Published Critical Opinion About President Obama-Confirmed Authorship! But Inaccurate
      www.truthorfiction.com
      
      This is a forwarded email that contains an opinion written by Matt Patterson That
      was allegedly published in the Washington Post. The email calls attention to how such criticism could come from a newspaper with a reputation for being extremely liberal.

      replyreport
6. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   It is a syndicated Post article, that is under copyright as per the paper's syndication terms.  I know this for sure as my own organization uses their syndicated articles.

   replyreport
7. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   I assumed it was from the post as stated.  It seems it is instead by a known liar. My mistake.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

   Or a painless video link that provides some salient and brief information that counters the phony  narratives out there . . .
   
   http://youtu.be/a0ccPh3YYH4

   replyreport
   1. 52

      OldSmurfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      first snopes is owned and operated by extreme left wing liberals and have been caught lying about their truth / false accusations here.... SNOPES GETS SNOPED AS FALSE
      
      BY: Jim Brasher
      
      SNOPES NO MORE!
      
      
      Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.
      
      Shades of Krystal Nacht
      
      Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan. We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'?
      
      
      We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!
      
      Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama and many other left wing organizations! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.
      
      
      I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?
      
      Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.
      
      So Here is what I wrote to Snopes:
      
      Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:
      
      The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.
      
      I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.
      
      I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.
      
      Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.
      
      That being said, I'll bet you didn't know this.
      
      Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them.
      
      Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics at its best and the beat goes on and on and on.
      
      Once again the US Senate sold us out!
      
      Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.
      
      She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course.
      
      They were never heard.
      
      It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.
      
      Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:
      
      You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!
      
      Check out these examples:
      
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx … 9-8857.htm
      
      
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx … 90.htm>
      
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx … 24.htm>
      
      
      If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.
      
      However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U. S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!
      
      There truly is tyranny afoot.
      =
      Search
      www.supremecourt.gov
      
      Next is the fact that truthorfiction.com is also run by extreme left wing liberals receiving funding from George Soros ... so I would NOT believe anything either of those two sites have to offer for anything.
      
      It is also my understanding of law that anything that is typed out and put on the internet immediately becomes public domain and until they change the cyber security laws that still stands. Obama is trying to get them changed but they have not yet been able to get anything to stand up in court.
      psycheskinner has already affirmed that the original article was indeed posted in the Washington Post and since snopes and truthorfiction.com both claim that article is false I lean towards the fact that the email is also true.

      replyreport
      1. 52

         OldSmurfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         one other thing, the only way you can be charged for breaking a copyright infringement is by asking for or collecting money for the work of someone else, if you are just posting something to a blog you can not be charged but at the same time if the original AUTHOR, in this case Matt Patterson, wants his work removed he could take legal action to have you remove it but can not seek monetary compensation if his work did not earn the poster any money or if it didn't slander the Author.

         replyreport
   2. 52

      OldSmurfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      anytime a liberal Obama in this case, can not run on their record they invent ANYTHING to try to disprove the other side.... I do NOT believe ANYTHING a liberal says.... why don't you just go vote for Ron Paul Wizard of Whimsey because this is just a conspiracy theory that has NO BASIS OR FACT like everything Ron Paul claims.

      replyreport
9. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   "It is also my understanding of law that anything that is typed out and put on the internet immediately becomes public domain and until they change the cyber security laws that still stands."
   
   This is completely and utterly untrue.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.

      replyreport
10. 84

    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    Great;
    
    Thanks for posting this article. It's nice to see some media that doesn't put him up on a pedestal, for once. Interesting take on things.
    
    You can tell the historians that Sarah Palin was the deciding factor in me voting for Obama in 08

    replyreport
    1. 51

       VetteRunnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah! Good thing you voted for the candidate with the intellectual, well-spoken, well-informed, and highly polished vice president!

       replyreport
       1. 84

          kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          McCain is smart, and informed...but also in his 70s. With him pushing the life expectency of American males, I was scared of Sarah Palin taking over in the event he passed away during his term. He has not, however, passed away in the past 4 years, so jokes on me.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             OLYHOOCHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             EXPOSED: Mainstream medicine's deadliest conspiracy
             
             Can you believe this video? It's a phenomenon.
             
             In fact, it was sent to more than 289,000 people in just the first 24 hours!
             
             But you might not see it at all.
             
             Why? Because, for the first time, mainstream medicine's deadliest conspiracy has been EXPOSED. Finally, this video is the 'shot heard around the world' the establishment prayed would never come.
             
             To be honest, I'm not sure how long this video will be available. There are powerful interests hell-bent on minimizing the damage it is doing to corporate medicine's profit machine.
             
             Before it's banned, watch it here.
             
             https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#in … e64c4dd09a

             replyreport