A Living Lie (Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama)

[EveningStar]

Thomas Sowell
Townhall.com
April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years...
More, with reader comments (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/15/a_living_lie?page=full&comments=true)

[Naturalized-Texan]

B. Hussein Obama and Hillary are both elitists who look down their noses with disdain on the working-class people who live in flyover country - the people who make this country work - the people among whom I grew up in rural Pennsylvania.

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon041508.gif

[DesertFox]

The comments are super. But then, Sowell is super.

[MaximumSam]

I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought. Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx, and now Obama is a dangerous demagogue. Give me a break. When Sowell writes about economics, he is sometimes good. Everything else is worthless.

[DoctorDoom]

Trolling as usual, Sam the Sham? So which of the two RAT traitors do YOU want in the White House?

You liberalosers would be amusing if you weren't so pathetic.

[EveningStar]

B. Hussein Obama
Please don't say that, N-T. That's not you. You're reasonable.

[DesertFox]

You a funny guy, ES.

[DesertFox]

I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought.Sowell has more coherent thoughts in a day than most people -- and ANY liberal -- have in a week. Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx, and now Obama is a dangerous demagogue.You must be ignorant of Obama's policy plans. They couldn't get much more Marxist. Marxism is indeed dangerous to any economy, so anyone pushing it is indeed dangerous. Give me a break.No. You're too smart not to know better than you show on this board.

[Tazeeyore]

Obama's comments can be construed in many ways. What most middle class Americans heard was that gun owners and christians are ignorant peons who can't make it without help from government. What other more moderate middle class Americans heard was that they hide behind guns and religion when times are tough. What I heard was Obama make a serious error by showing his underbelly. His seemingly teflon coating has a lot of holes in it now and the real Obama is showing through. A bitter, racist, bigoted elitist.

[DesertFox]

Taz, you forgot "...jive-ass, mouth-breathing, punkwalk poofter..."

"A bitter, racist, bigoted, jive-ass, mouth-breathing, punkwalk poofter elitist."

[Naturalized-Texan]

Please don't say that, N-T. That's not you. You're reasonable.:question:
I've been referring to him as B. Hussein Obama for months now and I plan to continue to refer to him as B. Hussein Obama from now on because that's his name.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You must be ignorant of Obama's policy plans. They couldn't get much more Marxist. Marxism is indeed dangerous to any economy, so anyone pushing it is indeed dangerous. No. You're too smart not to know better than you show on this board.
B. Hussein Obama is a typical liberal fascist, as is Hillary, as defined by Jonah Goldberg.

[MaximumSam]

Sowell has more coherent thoughts in a day than most people -- and ANY liberal -- have in a week. You must be ignorant of Obama's policy plans. They couldn't get much more Marxist. Marxism is indeed dangerous to any economy, so anyone pushing it is indeed dangerous. No. You're too smart not to know better than you show on this board.

I understand that my feelings on Sowell aren't popular here. I'm sure he's popular with those that agree with him. However, he's in my newspaper, and I really don't like his work, and I had to vent. I like a few conservative writers quite a bit, but Sowell never seems to write anything that would appeal to anyone but to those that agree with him already.

[EveningStar]

We're not looking for an echo chamber here. At least, I hope not.

I disagree with you most of the time, Sam. But you are no troll.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I understand that my feelings on Sowell aren't popular here. I'm sure he's popular with those that agree with him. However, he's in my newspaper, and I really don't like his work, and I had to vent. I like a few conservative writers quite a bit, but Sowell never seems to write anything that would appeal to anyone but to those that agree with him already.
Yeah, Sowell appeals to intelligent and informed people. That's why he doesn't appeal to you liberals.

[MaximumSam]

Yeah, Sowell appeals to intelligent and informed people. That's why he doesn't appeal to you liberals.

I try to be pretty open-minded about conservative writers. David Brooks writes for the NY Times, and he's fantastic, probably because his audience doesn't necessarily agree with him, so his columns are too the point, and well supported. I even like Cal Thomas most of the time. Sowell just seems like a rah-rah guy who writes "Democrats are evil" in different arrangements of words and calls it a day. I suppose there is a market for that, though - see Coulter, Ann.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I try to be pretty open-minded about conservative writers. David Brooks writes for the NY Times, and he's fantastic, probably because his audience doesn't necessarily agree with him, so his columns are too the point, and well supported.
But David Brooks has been so infected with virus of liberalism since he's been with the NY Times that he's no longer a conservative. That's why you like him.

[MaximumSam]

But David Brooks has been so infected with virus of liberalism since he's been with the NY Times that he's no longer a conservative. That's why you like him.

I dunno, he wrote a pretty scathing piece on Obama that I read this morning, but it was very strong and difficult to argue with.

[EveningStar]

I dunno, he wrote a pretty scathing piece on Obama that I read this morning, but it was very strong and difficult to argue with.
This one? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[MaximumSam]

This one? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

That's the one. What's sad is that Sowell is an economics professor, and could write something good, but chooses not to.

[EveningStar]

I think Dr. Sowell is one of our most valuable writers.

[Pennville_Bill]

I think Dr. Sowell is one of our most valuable writers.

Agreed! So do I...............

[Naturalized-Texan]

Maybe Dr. Sowell is just too intellectual for Sam, especially when he tells the truth about Obama:
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
Dr. Sowell is spot on. Obama eloquently says nothing.

He doesn't dare tell anyone what he is because if he told the people what he really is - a liberal fascist (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/6394/) - he would never have gotten this far in the presidential campaign.

[MaximumSam]

Dr. Sowell is spot on. Obama eloquently says nothing.


I thought that Brooks and Sowell basically said the same thing. However, Brooks used a concrete example - Obama's talk on free trade - as evidence, and cited a great amount of evidence that Obama was wrong and didn't care to be right. Sowell, OTOH, was all over the place, using Obama's vague reference to people as bitter to compare him to Marx, say he uses the middle class, links him to far left people, and on and on. He basically just writed a laundary list of things he doesn't like about Obama. It's only convincing to people that were already convinced.

[DesertFox]

That's all any political commentator does, Sam. Sowell assumes a certain level of current political knowledge. And it's doubtful if any political commentator ever convinces anybody, on any side, of much of anything. You know this.

[sunsettommy]

I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought. Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx, and now Obama is a dangerous demagogue. Give me a break. When Sowell writes about economics, he is sometimes good. Everything else is worthless.

How about telling us why you dislike Sowel's article.

The one he wrote about Barak Obama.

Otherwise you prove NOTHING!

[MaximumSam]

How about telling us why you dislike Sowel's article.

The one he wrote about Barak Obama.

Otherwise you prove NOTHING!

I dislike the article because it has no point. Obama has contempt lower class people? Why? Because of a quote taken way out of context? The left hates everyone? Why? Because of a quote by Karl Marx, and a quote by Barack Obama? It's silly stuff, really.

[DesertFox]

The point is very clearly stated: Obama's public persona is a lie with little or no connection to the person he really is. I think your problem with the article, Sam, is that you feel so much dissonance reading it that you end up not reading it and hence not understanding the crystal clear points Sowell makes.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The point is very clearly stated: Obama's public persona is a lie with little or no connection to the person he really is. I think your problem with the article, Sam, is that you feel so much dissonance reading it that you end up not reading it and hence not understanding the crystal clear points Sowell makes.
Maybe he can't read. :evilgrin:

[DesertFox]

He certainly needs to read with better comprehension if he's gonna practice law. Sowell writes very clearly. How anyone can miss his points escapes me.

[MaximumSam]

He certainly needs to read with better comprehension if he's gonna practice law. Sowell writes very clearly. How anyone can miss his points escapes me.

I understand what he wants his points to be. That's pretty clear. However, he's so disorganized and scattered that he fails to make his point, and fails to make any point worth listening to. Obama is a lie. That's a pretty big statement to make in a small third of a page column. Predictably, he relies on things that are unconvining - Obama's quote about working class people, his voting record, which is only catergorized as "liberal," and the fact that he's connected to Jeremiah Wright. He then runs out of things to say about Obama, and rambles about Karl Marx and George Bernard Shaw, then gets back to Obama to say that people sould ignore him.

He could have written a focused article about any sngle point in his diatribe, but that requires discipline, and he's a lazy writer. That's why his opinions are unconvincing to anyone but those who already disagree with him.

[DoctorDoom]

Obama's standard speech, Reader's Digest condensed version:

"I hope beyond hope that the changes that I hope for in the future will change my hope from the past and give me hope for change in the present, and that we who are united in hope for change can change the future. Hopefully."

[DesertFox]

I understand what he wants his points to be. That's pretty clear. However, he's so disorganized and scattered that he fails to make his point, and fails to make any point worth listening to. Obama is a lie. That's a pretty big statement to make in a small third of a page column. Predictably, he relies on things that are unconvining - Obama's quote about working class people, his voting record, which is only catergorized as "liberal," and the fact that he's connected to Jeremiah Wright. He then runs out of things to say about Obama, and rambles about Karl Marx and George Bernard Shaw, then gets back to Obama to say that people sould ignore him.

He could have written a focused article about any sngle point in his diatribe, but that requires discipline, and he's a lazy writer. That's why his opinions are unconvincing to anyone but those who already disagree [sic] with him.He writes to the point and in an organized fashion, Sam. Your criticisms don't stand up to reality. His article IS focused -- on his point, which is that Obama himself is a lie, as illustrated by the several facts of Obama's life that Sowell names, which are at odds with Obama's public persona.

As noted earlier, Sowell doesn't say what you think he should say, or what you would have said, and the dissonance is causing you to miss what he does say with crystal clarity. The man is hardly lazy; he's one of the most prolific scholars in the world, and every one of his books that I've read (six, I believe) is footnoted out the ying yang.

No lazy man does all that, Sam.

There's another possibility. As was the case with Big John about six years ago, people process information in surprisingly different ways, so that what makes perfect sense to one is near gibberish to others. People home in on different parts of a sentence so that one thinks Part X is the important thing while somebody else gets a completely different impression. This from the very same sentences.

I never knew who Sowell was when I came to this board seven years ago, so I could hardly agree with him. He convinced me.

[Wyatt_Junker]

For Shammy its not about the argot. He's merely practicing his typical boring brand of satanic advocacy. You say 'up'. Guess what? He's a-gunna say 'down'. 2 seconds later in another thread, you say 'down'. Guess what? Shammy says 'up'.

Its his 'tetris'.

We're simply the falling cubes as he attempts to twist us and turn us to make us fall into the awaiting blocks below *click*.

For most folks, these boards are a way to express a logical system of belief. For Sham, these boards hold no such value. Instead, they are a game to practice the art of the lie. The first rule of lawyering is to believe in nothing.

The rhetorics of nihilism.

Peck's second book talks about his kind to a fine point in People of the Lie. Evil treats humans as objects. Thus, the murderer themself becomes an empty shell, hollow, bereft of soul. Vampiracy.

Weak people are its victims. When you encounter evil, you know it by its exhausting nature. Its never ending complexity, always making excuses, always a proponent of nuance. Its grey worlds. For evil, there is no right and wrong. Read Genesis('did God say?').

Sociopathologicalism, the fruit that one knows it by, is that in its presence you become slowly confused. You aren't sure why at first, you second guess yourself. You've never encountered someone who can lie so easily and to the honest, there is a willingness to believe what the evil person is saying. A fair shake so to speak. And yet the fogginess does not dissipate, but only grows more and more and slowly you, the honest party, gets taken in, hornswaggled like an angelfish luring in its prey with its faint light.

Only people of faith in an outward set of moral beliefs, one that emanates from without, have a chance in evil's presence. This sounds dramatic, but its real. If you have no moral center, you are evil's prey.

Either Sham is just here playing tetris in the pretend court of law in his own head, or(if this is the real Sam), he is a strain of uncreative, mundane evil which also would explain his boring posts.

[sunsettommy]

I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought. Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx, and now Obama is a dangerous demagogue. Give me a break. When Sowell writes about economics, he is sometimes good. Everything else is worthless.

Divine this sammy:


Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.


Seems rather clear to me.What Sowell is stating here.That Obama is crafting an image.That he can make things happen.

Then we go on:


There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.


Sowell plainly states that Obama has no such record of being able to do what he claims he can do.

Sowell also shows that Obama is just another far left liberal with similar beliefs of other far left liberals.When it comes to Guns,Religion and Race.

He specifically states about Obama's past associations:

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

But you Sammy just blow a lot of hot air.Nothing to contradict what Sowell writes.

Here is a cartoon that pegs Obama well:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM080416CLR-ObamasB.jpg

[sunsettommy]

Sammy writes:


He could have written a focused article about any sngle point in his diatribe, but that requires discipline, and he's a lazy writer. That's why his opinions are unconvincing to anyone but those who already disagree with him.


He did write a focused article.

He plainy showed that Obama is not what he claims to be.That he can be an uniting leader.His past associations proves that he is not an uniter.That he willigly associates with unsavory people.

His Senatorial record is bereft of evidence that he is an uniter and a leader.

:ooo:

[sunsettommy]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by MaximumSam http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=669609#post669609)
I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought. Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx, and now Obama is a dangerous demagogue. Give me a break. When Sowell writes about economics, he is sometimes good. Everything else is worthless.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I replied:

"How about telling us why you dislike Sowel's article.

The one he wrote about Barak Obama.

Otherwise you prove NOTHING!"


Sammy comes back with a snappy reply!:


I dislike the article because it has no point. Obama has contempt lower class people? Why? Because of a quote taken way out of context? The left hates everyone? Why? Because of a quote by Karl Marx, and a quote by Barack Obama? It's silly stuff, really.


Meanwhile you left out all this part.That Sowell wrote:


Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.


The most important part that you completely ignored.To instead whine about secondary stuff.

The part you misunderstood anyway since Sowell was making the point that Obama is just another far left liberal who has a record of contempt towards others.

I quote:


However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
my emphasis

That was just before the Karl Marx and Bernard Shaw quotes.You whined over.

Really Sammy is this all you have to complain about?

:rotflmbo:

[sunsettommy]

This is the dweeb, Sowell is talking about:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn0414bcd.jpg

[Naturalized-Texan]

How can anyone possibly doubt a candidate whose entire message can be summed up with the following sentence?

“Unity and the hope for unity and the need for unity in the pursuit of hope and the hope that our unified hopefulness will carry us to ever greater heights of hopeful unity until each and every one of us is the person he longs to be.”

Jonah Goldberg, “Unified Theory:The candidate of Change forbids you to disagree” National Review, May 5, 2008, pg.46

[Tazeeyore]

Obama is all hat and no horse. Even the hat ain't much

[Maggie_T]

I think Sowell is a nut who can't form a coherent thought.

Well, it takes one to know one, doesn't it.

[Maggie_T]

Yeah, Sowell appeals to intelligent and informed people. That's why he doesn't appeal to you liberals.


:roar: :claps:

[Maggie_T]

I dunno, he wrote a pretty scathing piece on Obama that I read this morning, but it was very strong and difficult to argue with.


*S N O R T* You post that after posting this

Apparently, calling people bitter makes you Karl Marx

And, apparently, writing a scathing piece on Obama makes you a conservative.

Honestly, Maxi. That was silly. Even for you. I know you have chosen to studiously ignore me, but I have to say it.

[Maggie_T]

I dislike the article because it has no point. Obama has contempt lower class people? Why? Because of a quote taken way out of context? The left hates everyone? Why? Because of a quote by Karl Marx, and a quote by Barack Obama? It's silly stuff, really.

No, the only silly one here is you, Maxi.

Have you guys noticed how every time a lefty puts his big foot in his big arrogan mouth, and he is called on it, liberals immediately bleat "aw, his words were taken out of context"?

Have you also noticed that whenever a liberal tells the truth (albeit inadvertently) about his leftist politics, his minions rush to pooh-pooh it as "silly stuff"?

Funny thing, though. That never seems to apply to conservatives, does it.

[Maggie_T]

So which of the two RAT traitors do YOU want in the White House?


He wants HUSSEIN, of course. Why do you think he's defending him. Maxi is one of those liberals who has fallen in love with the idea of voting for a black. Makes him look so magnanimous and multiculturalist, and all that.