Fact check: First lady's false fairy tale of struggle

[sunzt]

I do not know how she got in the school. It is known that 5% of the students are let in on the whim of the principal. If you KNOW how she got in, show us the list of students who were let in on the whim of the prinicipal and that she is not on it. Properly sourced, of course.

Well what is your opinion on how she got in? If you truly "do not know" then I would assume you believe there's a 50/50 chance she got in on merit.

 

[Brainonska511]

Considering that Obama had never been published in the Harvard Law Review, it is like being the MVP of the Superbowl without ever having played pro ball.

You should consider reading this post

Not sure if fantolay is just trolling everyone, but I am just going to clear up what the President of a Law Review does. For the most part, law students will have a write on process to get into a law review where the previous members of the review along with designated faculty will choose the next generation of members. While on the review, some Law Reviews, and definitely not all, will require their members to write an article that could possibly be included in the Law Review as a student article. Many Reviews and Journals do not do this as they exclusively publish the works of legal scholars. Harvard Law Review is probably the most sought out venue for publishing by legal scholars so any space that they have is a major premium.

Secondly, the job of the student editors, including the President of the Law Review, is not to write articles. The job of the middle management editors is to review the scholarly articles that are submitted to be published in the Harvard Law Review and correct citations so they are compliant with Bluebook and various other editing standards. Additionally, the editors will cite check the validity of sources as legal scholars are better thought of as giant Wiki articles with hundreds to thousands of citations to sources. These citations must be checked for accuracy and for correctness of support to what is written in the article.

The Board on a Law Review is generally upper management of the Journal or Review. They check the editors' reviews of the scholarly articles and then review them a second time. They are also liasons between the Review and the people who submit their articles for publication. The President of the Law Review is pretty much the face of the Journal. They will deal directly with the legal scholars and the school's faculty to determine what articles should be published and the general management of the Journal.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit fantolay as to why Obama may not have any published articles. I was luckily (or unluckily depending on how you view writing scholarly articles) on a Journal that publishes student submissions and was chosen to be published. So, Riparian for President. I have been vetted.

 

[cybrsage]

Other than you, CLite, who made a statement about Michelle and murder?

You appear to say that it is fine if people make definative statements without having to back up those statements with fact. Do you hold this view for everyone, or just Perknose?

My view is that anyone who makes a definitive statement, such as the one Perknose made, needs to back up their statement with proof when it is requested. If you disagree with this, why?

 

[cybrsage]

Well what is your opinion on how she got in? If you truly "do not know" then I would assume you believe there's a 50/50 chance she got in on merit.

How do you get 50/50 out of "5% of students are chosen based on the whims of the prinicpal"?

Regardless of that, you appear to say that it is fine if people make definative statements without having to back up those statements with fact. Is this true? If not, then why are you trying to move the discussion away from Perknose having to support his claim?

 

[a777pilot]

I don't care how the Obama's or the Romney's grew up. I don't care how much money they have or don't have.

I am only concerned with what they might do in the next four years.

The great issues of this campaign, for me, are the economy and jobs. From what I have heard so far, I will be voting for Mr. Romney.



p.s., I am not, repeat, NOT voting for or against their wives.

 

[SheHateMe]

I have friends who attended premier private schools. They were not rich, they got in on Academic or Athletic scholarships. Michelle Obama grew up on the South Side of Chicago...sounds like a rich area to me. LOL

 

[monovillage]

I don't care how the Obama's or the Romney's grew up. I don't care how much money they have or don't have.

I am only concerned with what they might do in the next four years.

The great issues of this campaign, for me, are the economy and jobs. From what I have heard so far, I will be voting for Mr. Romney.



p.s., I am not, repeat, NOT voting for or against their wives.

You just don't understand. You're supposed to be obsessed with what Romney does with his own money, but not care what Obama does with yours.

 

[First]

No one particularly intelligent/objective cares what the crappy factcheck of a dead partisan's web site concludes about Michelle Obama's speech.

FYI.

 

[SheHateMe]

I find it interesting that Cybersage insists that Michelle got into good schools based on Affirmative Action and not possibly due to her intelligence and accomplishments.

After all...there is no such thing as an accomplished black person, right? If you are black and well educated, you earned your spot out of pity and not because you met the same criteria as your white counterparts.


Derp.

 

[a777pilot]

You just don't understand. You're supposed to be obsessed with what Romney does with his own money, but not care what Obama does with yours.

Ya, I know. Crazy, isn't it?

 

[rcpratt]

The story itself is terrible, but I don't disagree with the premise. The Obama's have never really struggled. A lot of us here have never really struggled either.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by several above, though. I do not care if they struggled, not one bit. Talk about the future, not the past.

 

[Aikouka]

So what exactly constitutes living a harder life? Is it food stamps? Is it not having a roof over your head? A lot of the time, we consider having a harder time as being able to raise above your previous social status to attain a new level of success. It doesn't mean that your journey is as difficult as someone who goes "from rags to riches" in a more literal sense, but it still means that you had to work hard to get where you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_Lee_Payne_Dunham

Well, your quote answered one of the things brought up in the thread...

The tuition fees for the prestigious preparatory school were paid with the aid of scholarships.

Looks like he got in through his own merits as well. 😛

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

LOL, I 'm shocked, shocked I tell you that pblabber and cybrtroll and the other trolls are in here smearing Michelle Obama with no evidence.

Racism is bad guys.

 

[monovillage]

LOL, I 'm shocked, shocked I tell you that pblabber and cybrtroll and the other trolls are in here smearing Michelle Obama with no evidence.

Racism is bad guys.

I'm shocked, shocked that a liberal wants to shut down any criticism of Obama by crying "racism racism"

The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

Thumper the Rabbit’s parents always taught him, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” If the left’s self-appointed Omniscient Diviners of True Meaning have their way, conservatives in the public square won’t be left with anything at all to say. Ever.

It’s a treacherous business exercising your freedom of speech in the age of Obama. As a public service, I present to you: “The 2012 Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words.” Decoder rings, activate!

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/31/the-condensed-liberal-handbook-of-racial-code-words/

 

[sunzt]

How do you get 50/50 out of "5% of students are chosen based on the whims of the prinicpal"?

Regardless of that, you appear to say that it is fine if people make definative statements without having to back up those statements with fact. Is this true? If not, then why are you trying to move the discussion away from Perknose having to support his claim?

If you truly "do not know", meaning you have no information to base your opinion on, then the chances are 50/50. However, that's not true since you are considering that 5% information. So do you think there's a 5% chance that Michelle Obama or her family used their political connections to influence the principal to accept her?

My post does make reference to anything perknose said and it's not what i'm asking about. I am only trying to get your opinion on whether or not, based on the information available, you think she got in by her own merits.

 

[Moonbeam]

This thread tells us two things, that Michelle Obama delivered a devastating and crushing effective speech that has terrified the illusionists by it sincerity and passion and shaken the carefully constructed and massively expensive delusional reality Republicans have created such that they have sent their slimiest dogs and most immoral and worthless scum out to see if they can slime her and bring her down, just as the devil tries to do to every good person. This party of egotistical filth and disgusting greed will stoop to any depth to garner power. How did they have become so depraved, so immoral, so convinced of their own privilege, that they display like peacocks and shit throwing apes.

The proud Republican party, taken over and propped up by human garbage.

 

[ky54]

Thankfully I went to college the easy way - I did 4 years in the military and went to school on the GI Bill while I worked full time through all 4 years of college. Heck, it's so easy everyone should do it.

 

[berzerker60]

She is only a role model if you think a role model should is someone who says “For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country” Yeah, a real good role model...

Being proud of your country it's a 'good' attribute or a 'bad' attribute. There's nothing moral about patriotism or immoral about not being proud of the country on a whole. America's done some very good things and also plenty of terribly evil things. How does having a different opinion than you about how that weighs out make her less of a role model?

 

[Moonbeam]

Being proud of your country it's a 'good' attribute or a 'bad' attribute. There's nothing moral about patriotism or immoral about not being proud of the country on a whole. America's done some very good things and also plenty of terribly evil things. How does having a different opinion than you about how that weighs out make her less of a role model?

Come on, a role model of American pride is an asshole who denigrates one of the most exemplary First Ladies the US has seen. This is what real American pride means.

 

[Pens1566]

When former RNC chairman Michael Steele thinks the speech was a knockout, then you had to expect this kind of "response" from the loonies. McCain's former advisor Steve Schmidt thought so as well.

 

[PJABBER]

This thread tells us two things, that Michelle Obama delivered a devastating and crushing effective speech that has terrified the illusionists by it sincerity and passion and shaken the carefully constructed and massively expensive delusional reality Republicans have created

I thought it was a good speech, but not THAT good! :awe:

such that they have sent their slimiest dogs and most immoral and worthless scum out to see if they can slime her and bring her down, just as the devil tries to do to every good person.

You talking 'bout me, punk? Are ya, punk? :twisted:

This party of egotistical filth and disgusting greed will stoop to any depth to garner power. How did they have become so depraved, so immoral, so convinced of their own privilege, that they display like peacocks and shit throwing apes.

Can I quote you in future posts? :sneaky:

The proud Republican party, taken over and propped up by human garbage.

The few, the proud, the WHAT??? D:

 

[woolfe9999]

Try again, this time actually support your statement. YOU made the statement, support it, or admit you made it up.





Can you prove your statement that she was not a principal pick? You made it twice now.

EDIT: To prove this, you simply need to show the names of the students the prinicpal picked during the year she was admitted. Since you KNOW she was not, you have this list of names and can easily produce it, right? Right?

Can you prove that you aren't a child molester? After all, it's POSSIBLE that you are, and I guess we'll just never know.

"Principal picks" were the exception, not the rule. And as Perknose aptly pointed out, her parents were not politically influential or wealthy, so there is no theory by which it would have made sense for her to get in that way. But hey, it's possible, just like you being a child molester is. After all, we must prove our statements beyond a shadow of doubt so I guess in the absence of absolute proof we'll just never know.

You're pathetic.

 

[zinfamous]

We look to our nation's leaders to tell us the truth, hard as it may be.

so, since your boy Ryan managed to produce the highest concentration of brazen, indisputable lies in one single speech--his first nationally publicized speech at that--than any political candidate in recent memory, do you hold him up to similar standards?

Even if the First lady lied about her childhood, do you put this on the same level as someone telling full mis-truths about not only their own policy, but votes and decisions that they have made while in congress? (this is the funny part, because the idiots voting record is a matter of public record. What kind of maroon would even have the stones to think that lying about such things was a good idea?)

😀

 

[shira]

We look to our nation's leaders to tell us the truth, hard as it may be.

They do, sometimes, but in ways that they believe will be palatable or even inspirational.

We hold them to a certain standard and when they betray that standard we feel personally betrayed and inclined to elect them out of office.

Should we have a similar standard for their spouses and their spokespeople?

This election season has been one endless cycle of "he lies" and "she lies" accusations. The great majority, maybe all of these accusations, particularly against the Republican candidates, have been proved false, spurious and political shenanigans meant to distract from the real issues we face. I expect these false, malicious and, yes, mundane accusations to continue in the months yet to come, and beyond.

Many here post critically about the Romney family's privileged position.

We do know that Mitt Romney gave away all of his inheritance from his father as a tribute to his father's and his own values. Romney and his family tithe and contribute substantially to charity (nearly $3 million to charitable causes out of taxable income of $21.6 million in 2010), itself a true contrast to most senior Democrat politicians. By the time his father had died, Romney had worked his way into a very comfortable living. His was not the life of unearned privilege but one where he worked for notable success.

Last night we heard the President's wife deliver a stirring speech. It was impressive, it brought tears to the eyes of adoring Democrats, though none fainted as expected.

Michelle spoke of a "hard" life, of rusty cars and old sofas. Maybe a car was rusty and the sofa used, but what we know of Michelle and Barack is that their lives were far apart from those who are truly needy. We still don't know anything about the President's academic records, he continues to hide them from public scrutiny, but we do know quite a bit of where the First Couple lived and how they lived and whom they associated with.

The speech Michelle gave was to connect this very privileged couple to the ordinary voter.

It is really too bad that it was a lie told brilliantly.

"Fact" check?" Riiiiggghhhhhttt . . .

Joel Barry Pollak (born April 25, 1977) is an American politician and author. As of 2012, he is the editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart.com.[2] In 2010 he was the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress from Illinois's 9th congressional district

Definitely an impartial fact checker.

 

[PJABBER]

so, since your boy Ryan managed to produce the highest concentration of brazen, indisputable lies in one single speech--his first nationally publicized speech at that--than any political candidate in recent memory, do you hold him up to similar standards?

Even if the First lady lied about her childhood, do you put this on the same level as someone telling full mis-truths about not only their own policy, but votes and decisions that they have made while in congress? (this is the funny part, because the idiots voting record is a matter of public record. What kind of maroon would even have the stones to think that lying about such things was a good idea?)

😀

Whut, you only drop in here once a week? All of those accusations have been debunked long ago.

The Demo talking points you want are on the NEXT page.

Get with the program, man.