President obama does not help his family, how can he help the nation?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Interviewed by whom? What sources? What did they say?

Sorry, but given all the crap tossed at Obama that turns out to be false, I'm not willing to just take this at face value. Whether you like the guy or not, I think some realistic evidence should be provided before damning him. It doesn't make sense that he'd "abandon" his extended family without good reason, even if only for political reasons.
You can take it at face value, you can research it, or you can just pretend it didn't happen. Doesn't really affect my life either way, and since I find this a good point but not exactly a burning issue, I'm good with all three of those. In fairness though, you should realize that two of those options are generally driven entirely by politics. For myself, this is entirely consistent with what I've read before so I have no trouble believing it - in the agnostic fashion of one who doesn't much care. (Okay, two of those options are driven by politics OR apathy. LOL)

He's also not taken seriously, even by conservatives.
Given his book sales, I'd say he's taken seriously by quite a lot of people. I also see him quoted fairly often. But perhaps his books are just very, very funny.

Of course, one could also say that Barack Obama is not taken seriously, even among progressives.

So, uhh, did George say he'd ever asked his half brother for help, or does he just think he wouldn't get any, for some reason?

Obviously, the article avoids that point entirely...

Having no one else to turn to can be a state of mind rather than a statement of fact...
Somehow I doubt George Obama can pick up the phone and reach President Obama, although I'm sure he's tried to make contact for financial assistance before. On the other hand, he had recently met D'Souza and knew his political opposition to his brother. D'Souza is obviously more easily reached since he's not surrounded by a phalanx of political flunkies designed to prevent just such embarrassing contact. George gets the money he needs for his son's medical needs, D'Souza gets a valid political point. Everybody's happy. Compare that to trying to reach the President, remembering that while George is his brother, he's also someone with whom Barack has scant relationship; perhaps they've never met at all. Certainly George is someone with whom Barack has no real relationship other than the blood from what I've seen, even if they've met several times. The fact that he is Barack's brother isn't going to get him through the White House switchboard.

It's a good point in principle, that Obama preaches we're our brother's keeper while he's not even his real brother's keeper. He can't possibly be ignorant of his extended family's dire poverty as it's been recorded numerous times. It's also true that most people probably don't see a burning ethical obligation to provide charity to a brother one doesn't know, or at least, not at a level above that charity owed a stranger, even though the concept of his brother living in such abject poverty when Barack could so easily lift him out (to at least Kenyan middle class standards) seems sad. And progressives (and Marxists) are fairly consistent that individuals don't have responsibilities, groups do. (At least, not responsibilities beyond feeding government.) Frankly I can't see this as much of an issue either way. Should he help his brother? Probably. Does it make him a bad person that he doesn't? Not really. It's more that helping our family is one of those things we should probably all do more often that most of us do not and the Messiah is right in the middle of the pack with us.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Hey, he helped out plenty and the proof is below.

acid_picdump_29.jpg
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Please quote from the article where the President refused to help a family member.

Yeah, this article seems a bit long on one-sided extrapolation from very little data. Which isn't surprising when you consider that the source is Dinesh D'Souza. As a general rule, getting your information from incredibly biased op-ed pieces is a not a great way to be very well informed...
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
George Obama doesn't want hand-outs from his brother, he wants to live his own life. God forbid!

From the wikipedia summary:
In later interviews George contradicted this picture. In an interview with The Times, he "said that he was furious at subsequent reports that he had been abandoned by the Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum."[121] He told The Times, "Life in Huruma is good." George Obama said that he expects no favors, that he was supported by relatives, and that reports he lived on a dollar a month were "all lies by people who don't want my brother to win."[121] He told The Telegraph that he was inspired by his half-brother.[120] According to Time, George "has repeatedly denied…that he feels abandoned by Obama."[125] CNN quoted him as saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now. The magazines, they have exaggerated everything… I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges."[123]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
...
It's a good point in principle, that Obama preaches we're our brother's keeper while he's not even his real brother's keeper. He can't possibly be ignorant of his extended family's dire poverty as it's been recorded numerous times. It's also true that most people probably don't see a burning ethical obligation to provide charity to a brother one doesn't know, or at least, not at a level above that charity owed a stranger, even though the concept of his brother living in such abject poverty when Barack could so easily lift him out (to at least Kenyan middle class standards) seems sad. And progressives (and Marxists) are fairly consistent that individuals don't have responsibilities, groups do. (At least, not responsibilities beyond feeding government.) Frankly I can't see this as much of an issue either way. Should he help his brother? Probably. Does it make him a bad person that he doesn't? Not really. It's more that helping our family is one of those things we should probably all do more often that most of us do not and the Messiah is right in the middle of the pack with us.

You're kind of all over the place there. But I do have to admire the way you managed to both excuse Obama's actions as understandable while simultaneously bashing him for it. A lesser man would have had to actually take a position on the issue ;)

Liberalism isn't any more of an absolute than conservatism is though, which seems to be the central point in D'Souza's argument. Believing in helping others, either personally or through the government, doesn't require you to ALWAYS help others in every situation where you (or Dinesh D'Souza, as the case may be) could possibly justify it. In the same way that conservatives aren't necessarily being contradictory if they personally donate to charity but don't support expanding welfare. Obviously both viewpoints depend a lot on the underlying reasons and motivations, but that's really the point that D'Souza, not surprisingly, ignores.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You're kind of all over the place there. But I do have to admire the way you managed to both excuse Obama's actions as understandable while simultaneously bashing him for it. A lesser man would have had to actually take a position on the issue ;)

Liberalism isn't any more of an absolute than conservatism is though, which seems to be the central point in D'Souza's argument. Believing in helping others, either personally or through the government, doesn't require you to ALWAYS help others in every situation where you (or Dinesh D'Souza, as the case may be) could possibly justify it. In the same way that conservatives aren't necessarily being contradictory if they personally donate to charity but don't support expanding welfare. Obviously both viewpoints depend a lot on the underlying reasons and motivations, but that's really the point that D'Souza, not surprisingly, ignores.
:D Why would I take a position? As usual, I can see both sides. Should he help his brother? Yes. Does it make him a bad person that he doesn't? No. Is he a hypocrite for demanding that others give him their money because "we are our brother's keeper" when he ignores his own brother's plight? Yes. Is D'Souza principled for paying Obama's supposed debt to his brother? No, he simply paid a very small (to him) amount for a very minor political point. (And possibly a bit of advertisement for his books and movie.)

To your second paragraph, can you help me with any valid underlying reasons and motivations that would justify a multimillionaire like Barack not paying a measly $1,000 for his nephew's required health care beyond what I listed? To my knowledge Barack has not assisted any of his African relatives, so saying he doesn't ALWAYS have to help others in every situation where you could possibly justify it looks a lot like he NEVER has to help others. He just has to make you do it.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
There's no reason to believe George Obama ever asked the president, or even let him know about the need for the money. As I've pointed out above, he's said he wants to take care of himself. Should Obama hunt down all relatives and insist they move to the White House or something, no matter what they want, while keeping them under surveillance for possible monetary needs?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
There's no reason to believe George Obama ever asked the president, or even let him know about the need for the money. As I've pointed out above, he's said he wants to take care of himself. Should Obama hunt down all relatives and insist they move to the White House or something, no matter what they want, while keeping them under surveillance for possible monetary needs?
You have a shockingly low opinion of the President to suggest he is unaware of something known to most of the nation, even though it's about his own family.

One could imagine something between nothing and moving all his relatives into the White House, were one to put down the Obama crack pipe.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
If you're just talking about the poverty in general, again, George Obama says he wants to make his own way, and it's shitty to second-guess him if he's trying to make his own way in the world on his own merits. Isn't that the whole conservative dream? Or is welfare a moral mandate for this one specific person, but just creates laziness for everyone else?

If you mean the specific $1000, the whole nation wasn't aware of it until this article/movie explana-bragging about sending that money. There's no reason to believe he ever approached the president for that specific money.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
For myself, this is entirely consistent with what I've read before so I have no trouble believing it - in the agnostic fashion of one who doesn't much care. (Okay, two of those options are driven by politics OR apathy. LOL)

So, as someone who doesn't like Obama, you're inclined to believe a completely unsubstantiated negative story about him, because in the past you've read other negative stories about him that you've also believed.

Nice illustration of confirmation bias.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If you're just talking about the poverty in general, again, George Obama says he wants to make his own way, and it's shitty to second-guess him if he's trying to make his own way in the world on his own merits. Isn't that the whole conservative dream? Or is welfare a moral mandate for this one specific person, but just creates laziness for everyone else?

If you mean the specific $1000, the whole nation wasn't aware of it until this article/movie explana-bragging about sending that money. There's no reason to believe he ever approached the president for that specific money.

There's really no reason to think the money was ever sent, for that matter...

It's just more of the same Hate-um Obama! Shame-um Obama! It's all his fault, everything!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So, as someone who doesn't like Obama, you're inclined to believe a completely unsubstantiated negative story about him, because in the past you've read other negative stories about him that you've also believed.

Nice illustration of confirmation bias.

Righties? Confirmation Bias?

Shee-it, Sherlock- it's how they live, how their leadership suckers 'em, every time.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Righties? Confirmation Bias?

Shee-it, Sherlock- it's how they live, how their leadership suckers 'em, every time.
You're just not understanding the liberal vs the conservative mind set. Liberals like me believe in taking money from others and giving it to ourselves - rich people pay taxes and it goes to pay for my future kid's education. Obama is liberal and therefore does not give money to other people. Conservatives are confused by this because they do things the other way around. Most conservatives are middle class people but they vote for officials who promise to cut taxes for the upper class and jack up the taxes for the middle class. Conservatives vote to increase their own taxes in order to give tax cuts to the top 1%.

I know some people will say that I'm just a dumb woman but I have real data to support my claim.
conservatives give more than liberals
Romney's plan increases middle class taxes so voting for Romney is like donating money to him
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Actually I think those numbers are misleading. Donating to Churches counts as donating to charity.

I would love to see non-religious charity giving as the true number.

That said, there is a study that came out very recently that shows the less weatlhy give more than the wealthy. But again, we dont know if that is for non-religious donations.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You have a shockingly low opinion of the President to suggest he is unaware of something known to most of the nation, even though it's about his own family.

One could imagine something between nothing and moving all his relatives into the White House, were one to put down the Obama crack pipe.

I just had an image of a new reality show, kind of a cross between The Beverly Hillbillies and The West Wing.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
obama is a hypocrite, he preaches about helping others and he wont help his brother, cant wait to see the lefties defend him
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
One of the major goals of the left is to destroy the family and replace it with the state. Straight from the Communist Manifesto.

Yes, because the majority of people with left of center views in the United States are secret marxists :rolleyes:

Troll, troll, troll your boat.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So, as someone who doesn't like Obama, you're inclined to believe a completely unsubstantiated negative story about him, because in the past you've read other negative stories about him that you've also believed.

Nice illustration of confirmation bias.
Hmm. Let's turn that around. As someone who likes Obama, you deny any truth to an internally consistent string of reportage, no matter how many times the same thing is reported about multiple Obama relatives. Now which of us seems the most reasonable, the one who accepts that several independent sources reporting the same behavior about a string of relatives are probably essentially true, or the one who denies all the reports simply because he will believe no bad about the Messiah, no matter the evidence?

Understand, I don't consider this a big deal. I don't believe that Obama has a huge ethical obligation to lift from poverty people he doesn't know simply because his worthless father doffed off (and then abandoned) the both of them. SOME ethical obligation? Sure - they ARE family. Do I think worse of him for not helping them? Not really. I suspect though that not many of us would do this, even were we multimillionaires, no matter what we say about the great altruistic things we'd do were we only as rich as THIS one or THAT one. I suspect that were I a multimillionaire like Obama, I too would prefer to simply ignore these people, even my own half-brother. I do stand ready to help my wife's half brothers at need, but there's a relationship there, a sense of family that is probably missing between Obama and his half brothers. A sense of family makes all the difference in the world.

However, I'm also not so foolish as to deny what seems to be very plain and is widely reported, that Obama's bothers (and his aunts, cousins, etc.) are not being helped financially and are in desperate poverty both here and abroad. Since this is evident, it's also a given that Obama is not helping them. (There can be some argument about who exactly is helping someone if they are being helped, but if they are not being helped, then clearly anyone and everyone is not helping them.) That you don't wish to hear it and refuse to believe it doesn't change this very simple, very basic, irrefutable fact.

I just had an image of a new reality show, kind of a cross between The Beverly Hillbillies and The West Wing.
:D Indeed. Now that might be reality television I'd actually watch.