Barack Hussein Obama video

Video Link

I just watched this video and it is a bit much to take in and believe what they are saying in this video. I really want to hear what people's thoughts are on what this video says and portrays. Do you buy into the fact that voting this man in will destroy the USA? Or do you believe that these facts are just random facts thrown together to make him look bad? Please watch the video and give me your feed back.
I swear, it's like no one listens when they say do some actual research and instead you just go out and find some random anti-Obama video and claim everything in it is true.

Almost everything in that video has been taken out of context for the sake of fear-mongering and making something out of nothing, especially the constant use of his middle name, as if that's means for something relevant.

Is reading fundamental to anyone?
No, you misunderstood me. I just got this video link from a friend and I wanted to see what people had to say about this because, alot of people are watching this video and believing what they are saying. I don't understand why he was not putting his hand on his chest during the national anthem.
It's called Cherry Picking, Omega. They're taking things of almost no importance regarding him and making it into a big issue, missing the bigger picture completely. Don't know why he wasn't but he doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't want to, and hand positions are not tantamount to patriotism.

Yes, he went to a Muslim school when he was little. He went to a Catholic school before that, something no one seems to want to point out.


e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
The spotlight fallacy occurs when someone thinks a class of things (like the actions of Obama or the sermons of his former pastor) are typified by what is shown in the media. A short video of a person gives a very limited view from which to predict what they normally do or say.

Though, since the OP simply asked about the video, it's not an example of the fallacy, I suppose. Eh, either way, I just wanted to point it out, since I read about it in Dinosaur Comics. Also, hooray for Dinosaur Comics! :)
Last edited:
Ok, let's go through the entire thing, then.

First, this is what we call "a hit piece". When it's closely targeted, it's very effective (in the US). When it's done in the open, or actually looked at, it typically backfires (even in the US), unless it's done very carefully. For example, over here, you rarely if ever try a stunt like that, because it's hiding negative campaigning that inspires no debate whatsoever (which is considered a bad thing).

But it's what the republican party typically campaigns with - anyone who is on any of the republican campaigns' mailing lists know that. And the type of distribution, which coincides with the major talking points the White House currently peddles in, are always of this kind - "a friend sent this". Because that's how this works - you have small cells working to spread the word, for example some convert on a student campus, etc. You also get paid some money to do this, which isn't an extraordinary thing in US politics (i.e., thank you for the effort in your campaign, here's a dollar for the paper, pens and cardboard). But that's often become "if you write something favourable for our client, I'll give you a dollar", and it's worked really well. Also on a larger scale.

But that's how these types of things show up. I don't doubt that the guy who made this believes in something. But the "fact" is that they're choosing a narrative now that's the opposite of what has been peddled in for a long while, that happens to coincide with the general republican talking points. And he's doing it by using the full set of the existing talking points, and showing everyone the manual on how to put together the /small/ soundbites that are supposed to run in ads - clearly showing that he doesn't understand just how badly he's mangling the cause with this.

Specifically, the narrative now is how Obama is an unknown, something you can't trust (while McCain is trusty and stable, someone you want to take care of your lawn, or something) - while just a couple of weeks ago, he was "the most liberal senator in history, and the voting record shows it".

So let's just look at some examples:

Edwards blasting Obama for voting "present": the reason people do that is to protest. They've been sitting through the procedures, they've supported one suggestion or other - but the final bill doesn't reflect anything the senator can put his vote behind (or, like Obamas campaign likes to say, he's refusing the constitutionality of the bill, which.. might make sense more often than it should). But it's also something senators have been doing to avoid having their name on something they've worked with the other senators on, and which will pass by party majority. I very much doubt that any republican campaign wants to bring attention to that sort of thing, though.

In other words, it would be excellent as a one- liner: "Obama doesn't know what to vote (ad paid for by raging republican reformist coalition for Chuck Norris)". But as a longer point, it obviously falls through, because it begs the question: "what did he mean - he's defending his conduct in the senate - that's what puts him aside from the other democrats, after all - what's this about?".

"Communist mass- murderer Che Guevara". Give me a break. But it's a great example - the republicans are supposed to brand the Obama campaign as communist, revolutionary hotheads in alliance with mass- murderers - except.. he's making the case to bluntly and innocently. Lots of people who don't kill people in revolutions admire Che, and certainly the republicans have their share of insane extremists on their own, so it's not really something they would truly want to bring actual attention to as a discussion- point.

The flag pin? Excuse me, I'm off brushing my SS sigils, so I can't comment on it.

No hand (refused to do it!) on the chest during the national anthem? Sounds serious. Again, I suppose it might've made sense in a short clip, Obama being the odd one out that doesn't think highly of the US. But people pledge allegiance to the flag saying "One nation underdog", and still the communists won't come invading - nor have Obama campaigned on any of those symbols to prove patriotism - so it falls through.

Reverend Wright - we had that clip going through the media for three months or so, and Obama finally left the church (making the point that he's still Christian, and just don't have close affiliations with practicing preachers and crowded churches - which no president should've - again puncturing the republican talking point, which is deliberate).

Obama's wife not being proud of the country - that's a larger argument that resonates with Obama's supporters, and fits directly into Obama's campaign- rhetoric, like in the previous point. I.e., it's action that counts, not symbols and words. (Which, as you see, is what that film is targeting - that Obama's real actions are not patriotic - which he ironically and stupidly wants to prove by pointing out he's not wearing his lapel- pin).

Liberation theology? Ok, this is where the film goes from being badly made propaganda for the GOP, to appearing more and more like an ironic piece someone would create to make republican campaigners look even more stupid than they are. "This is the first link to Obama's campaign" - I mean, seriously - he's even laying bare, completely open, the instructions to associate Obama with uncouth history and horrible black revolutionary terrorists.

(You know - I'd love to know when exactly this was made, really - it's as if someone is pissed that the talking points don't stick, something we've seen in comments after the democratic primary was over - that "insiders" are "impressed" with the "skillful Obama campaign". I.e., they say that he's been clever not getting defined by the GOP. And that they're really impressed by that sort of skill not to be a complete moron, and turning this into a "democratic" thing that people can "believe in". And yes, they are that fucking stupid and out of touch).

"Because Americans don't want a racially divisive leadership" - haha. Priceless. It's a quote from the manual.

"Lift the ban on speaking with terrorist leaders around the world" - oh, my god! There's a BAN on talking to leaders you disagree with! Saint Reagan! No, please don't look at me like that! I swear I'll never say it again! The gipper! One for the Gipper, please!

"Over 20 years of: Racist, marxist, Quasi- Christian, antisemitic" - again, quotes from the manual. It's what they are supposed to convey - NOT STATE OUT IN THE OPEN, YOU GODDAMN IDIOT.

"Can this argument be made against McCain?" - another quote from the manual - this is how you're supposed to brief the herd. Make the rapid points, and make the point that McCain is the opposite and that none of the marxist evil shit "could be made" to stick on him.

"And I invented the internet". - All right, this really is a parody, isn't it.

In any case - hope everyone learned something about "politics" today :p. Thank you.
No, no. This is purely logical. See - seeing is believing. Therefore, if you see something, you have to believe it. Quodo errat demostratum. And that's why republicans are awesome, and are on the side of Right. No, don't complain - ah, ah! It's proven! *bsghssht* no, it's proven, right there! Forever! I wrote so, and you saw it! Admit defeat! Republicans are right and Obama is a terroristic commonist!!!