Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    The following story from Infowars claims that Obama is basically a puppet president trained by Harry Lennix, who was recruited by shadowy figures to make Obama seem more presidential. However it seems to be entirely baseless, as Lennix flatly denies he said anything like that, and old video of Obama shows that he spoke the same, and had the same mannerisms as now, way back before he met Lennix.

    http://www.infowars.com/mancow-muller-obama-is-an-actor-trained-by-harry-lennix/
    In the following video, Lennix quite plainly denies the story (skip to around 1:50 for Lennix)

    saying
    According to Mancow, Obama became acquainted with Lennix in 1992.

    Here are some clips of Obama from when he attended Harvard in 1990.



    (At 6:30 in the below clip)


    Obama would have been about 28 or 29 at the time of those recordings and I would say speaks and acts just like he does today.

    I suppose anyone with any journalistic ethics to speak of would have brought this up in an article discussing Obama's mannerisms and style.

    [Admin: This OP has been updated with information from the thread below. Original OP content below]

    This comes frrom the "Obama is not one of us" crowd.

    I've never been to Chicago, but I notice people from different parts of the country and world tend to share accents and mannerisms with others from their respective regions.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2013
  2. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member


    Here's Harry Lennix back in '97 on Living Color.
     
  3. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Wow - politicians get groomed for the media - who wuddathunkit??:rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Shocking expose type news: They also rehearse for debates.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Actually, there is a bit more to it than that. Obama was an unknown quantity and skyrocketed to prominence on the strength of a single speech at the 2004 convention. He was touted as a comer and come he did and his attraction was superficial and based on his dignified, intelligent bearing. If that is all the product of packaging and grooming and taking lessons on how to "play one on tv," then it says a lot about the guy and more about the folks who fell for it, of which I am embarrassed to admit that I am one.
     
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    What does it tell you and why?

    To me it says nothing more than grooming and training work, and that the techniques that people have spent billions studying for improving public perception work

    why is this news??
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    There have been other presidents who have gone from obscurity to the presidency in short periods of time.


    Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter to name a couple.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  8. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Because in case you've missed it, the perception and the reality are light years apart and all the hope and change gloop has turned out to be pure contrivance and a swindle. Yes, it's politics as usual, so we got no one to blame but ourselves for swallowing this bunk yet again. But after thinking that there couldn't possibly be a level lower than GWB, it sucks to learn that this fraud is even worse.

    That it says nothing to you than grooming and training and the investment of billions for the purpose of improving public perception work is telling. You essentially are saying that the whole process is a charade and that it backed by billions of dollars in making it work that way.

    Some would call that a conspiracy, but they are deemed drivel based crazy people. Yet here you are saying it's not even newsworthy. Rabbit hole, ho.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And let's stick to verifiable facts here.

    Mancow told Alex Jones that Harry Lennix told him that he did some kind of acting instruction with Obama.

    Is there anything that can be verified beyond that?
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just looked at the available evidence:



    Very weak.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Why? You just said the verifiable facts were that Mancow told Alex Jones that Harry Lennix told him that he did some kind of acting instruction with Obama.

    Does this vid not support those facts? Does it present a different set of facts? What is weak about it?
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's weak because that's all it supports. There's no indication of what Lennix actually said, or how serious he was. There's a lot of setup there about how they hope it does not hurt Lennix (anticipating denials). There's lots of ancillary nonsense and speculation, like how Obama must be easily manipulable because his mother was supposedly in porn and he is supposedly really stupid. And a lot of general stuff about they already strongly believe that everything is fake.

    In short, it looks like Mancow deliberately putting his spin on Lennix jokingly saying something like "That rat-bastard, I taught him everything he knows!", then talking about acting classes he gave Obama, and then Alex amplifying that spin.

    Basically there is no evidence of anything here.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    There's nothing in what Watson said that is inaccurate, so there's no inaccuracy there, no tabloid stuff.

    That being the case, you seem to be spinning this into ""Lennix jokingly saying" when nothing in the original report indicates he was joking, so this thing is whispering down the lane quite nicely.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  15. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    More to the story....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  16. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member


    I can think of one thing that is inaccurate.

    The headline in the first article. Report: Obama is an Actor Trained by Harry Lennix

    That's misleading right off the bat, a REAL journalist would never write that kind of headline. It should have been something more along the lines of "Radio Personality Claims Obama is an Actor". The duty of a journalist is to look for facts, not hearsay.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Lennix: "Those are not my words". "I didn't train him". "I never said those words". "I never said that I trained him, or anything of the kind".

    "You know, people hear what they want to hear, I have no idea".

    "All I said is I don't like his policies".

    Case closed?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    Just based on the way that article is written. I can just about ascertain that the next rebuttal will be that he's denying it because he doesn't want to get in trouble...

    Just suggesting that he is coyly denying it seems like a stretch. Lennix was very polite and professional during the entire incident despite being repeatedly pestered about the allegations.


    The whole thing just seems weird. Mancow makes these claims about Lennix training Obama, and Lennix denies those claims.

    Now if Lennix was 'afraid' why would he even reveal something like that and if Mancow valued his relationship with Lennix (whatever that might be) why would he run right to Alex Jones and tell the story on his show?

    I don't know Mancow, but Alex Jones and infowars have a reputation for dishonesty, and its really hard to swallow something this weak coming from them.
     
  19. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    REAL journalists don't write headlines, period.

    However, if your definition of the duty of a journalist is the bar, as I believe it should be, you just wiped out most of the msm and certainly the WH press pool. They are far closer to stenographers than journalists.
     
  20. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    This thread illustrates why I don't believe anything coming out of infowars. They are like a stopped clock; you need another clock to make sure they are right. At that point, why not rely on that other clock?
    Alex Jones CONSTANTLY misleads his audience with sooooooper incendiary headlines guaranteed to get traffic to that story. He's just another incarnation of PT Barnum with a circus and hokum to get people to him. Who wouldn't want to see the Bearded Lady or Lizard Boy or others? Only you get there, and it's a fat bearded guy in a dress and a kid with a bad skin rash.
    Like another example is when he tried to spin authorities citing some lady for violating civil code about the height of weeds in her front yard as some nefarious UN Agenda 21 plot to enslave the whole world.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  21. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    That would be a good thing though, considering a stenographer's job is to write down exact words. Would you prefer they misquoted and spun people's words?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pseudojournalism.1890/
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Yeah, I think it's a great idea that the press just writes down what the WH press secretary says and calls it news.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Prison Planet/Info Wars is far from a perfect site, but the idea that everything they put up is not to be trusted is ludicrous and shows a lack of discrimination. Regardless of what source one goes to, checking up on what is put forth is necessary.

    The rest of your post is overheated bunk. All sites drive traffic based on their audience. PP has nothing on Huffpo or countless others in that regard. I'm not a fan of hype and no fan of PP hype any more than Huffpo hype or any other. It all goes back to discrimination. Sifting is required.

    The idea that PP is somehow a special case of bad is nothing more than preaching to a choir that wants to believe such bunk and the idea that it is less trustworthy than msm sources is curious. MSNBC alone should dispel such a rumor. Talk about spinning to beat the band.

    The choir is getting smaller. MSM is in decline and alternative media is on the rise to fill the void. It's not something you can blame on that boogeyman AJ.
     
  25. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    If only they had made "The King's Speech" a decade earlier, eh?
     
  26. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    A bad actor to say the least
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  27. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

  28. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    From what I gather, he's still considerably less hated than Bush, but that's one very high bar. The relentless persecution of whistle blowers, the upsurge in drone strikes, the rather dubious attempt to get involved in the Syrian situation; none of these have painted him as particularly better than his predecessor. Still, he does speak rather well, and that godawful smirk that GW could never quite hide is a thing of the past. He'd probably have fallen a bit further if he didn't have to contend with the tea-bagging lunatics in congress. When Europeans read the stuff they come out with, well ... you can guess the rest.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Hingefactor

    Hingefactor Member


    Virtually every Infowars story has a built in disclaimer, but I tend to doubt that Infowars fans actually read the articles. Instead, they jump right to the comments in hopes of being the first to shout "false flag".

    Case in point, the conspiracy theory of Andrew Breitbarts death. In the very first paragraph, it's was stated that a coroner "who may..." have been involved with Brietbarts death had mysteriously died. The operative word is "may", but, apparently those 3 little words were ignored. The reality is that the coroner had nothing to do with Breitbart, and only happened to work in the same large office building. But, to this day, and similar death prompts infowars fans to call it being "Breitbarted".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    Even if that report could serve as evidence that the entertainer in chief is an actor, it probably wouldn't be a big deal worth "reporting" on or seeing as evidence of something from your perspective. What would evidence that the president is an actor look like to you?

    Because it seems to me like there are reams of evidence that he is an actor, usually more concerned about the ratings/polls and reviews of his performances on the political stage or with fundraising for the next show than with what's actually going on in reality and so forth.

    On the other hand, even if there is almost no evidence in this specific report of exactly how the process of grooming, handling and training an entertainer in chief takes place... it would probably still be a big apocalyptic deal from Jones' perspective. No surprise there. But if the big picture clearly shows that the president is, in fact, quite similar to an actor on the political stage then Jones' perspective is closer to the truth than his "debunker."

    I wish that Infowars would do a better job and investigate or interview the actual people responsible for producing the show and handling the entertainer in chief. After all, their overall perspective is clearly closer to the truth than the "please tell me your favorite color"/corporate media or the "nothing to see here because Jonestown is crazy, no evidence of anything at all..."/debunkers of Jones.
     
  31. Hingefactor

    Hingefactor Member

    I think you are illustrating the reality that people don't know what the difference between news, opinion, and propaganda are. In my opinion, the Alex Jones websites are the farthest thing from the news possible. It's just political/ideology based tabloid journalism, which exists only because it's audience exists. AJ knows how to make money off of his fans. PT Barnum would have been proud of him.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    And they're often irresponsible.

    The only problem being, they're often the only people that will challenge the official story or have whistle blowers on and so forth. Perhaps we ultimately need alternative media to emerge that does a better job, all the way around.

    They can't be the only people taking a perspective that causes them to be willing to report on possible details about how the president is an actor. Especially given all the evidence that the president is, in fact, an actor.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Reams. That's quite a lot, isn't it? Don't suppose you'd care to share some of the reams of evidence that the US president is an actor?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  34. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Trained by an actor or an actor like Reagan?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  35. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Ooh. Bitchslap. Wish I'd spotted that gap.
     
  36. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    That would make him a modern politician.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    So yet again, you just blather on with emotive mush. You haven't been able to back up anything with substance of any kind. This is bunk. If you think I am illustrating anything, quit telling me so and start showing me. The only reason I got in this thread is because you jumped on here with a blanket assertion you didn't bother to substantiate. You still haven't been able to do so. Just more of how you feel.

    I drop by PP to see what is going on re stuff the msm isn't going to bother with. I see something I am interested in learning about, I go and check for other sources. I sift out whatever editorializing and go from there. I never, ever bother with the comments because when I did drop down there a few times early on, I found too many people making the same kind of sweeping, empty assertions that you are making here, just aimed in a different direction. I don't like that sort of herd mentality regardless of where it comes from. It's as odious there as it is here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2013
  38. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    You seem to be saying that people are like sheeple.

    And "Wrap yourselves in this false flag... never mind those flag draped coffins."/Fox News or "Here's Syrian Danny with another report..."/CNN or "Watch out, flying incubator babies!"/ABC or "Here's another ad for Boeing and Lockheed Martin."/NBC and so forth aren't?

    What if the political/ideology involved in journalism like this is just more obvious in the case of Jones because his media empire isn't as refined or produced as well as other forms of media, yet?

    I'd also argue that Jones is less likely to get people killed than the corporate media and Murder Inc. There's been talk on Metabunk about how Jones is likely to get people killed with his crazy talk. Yet the corporate media is already getting people killed and then running reports on how they're getting people killed based on lies that they continually fail to investigate or report on, between their ads for Boeing Inc. and so forth. Point being, the military industrial media is far more likely to get people killed with their irresponsible reporting at this point. So what standard of "journalism" are you judging Jones against?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Right. It's not that they are some kind of outfit beyond reproach, but that they touch stuff I'm never going to find out about from the msm. That said, this heavily marketed meme that everything they put out is bullshit or that they are completely worthless is also irresponsible and smacks of concerted propaganda.
     
  40. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Yup. Which, given the contempt in which the breed is held by so many, makes the cult of personality and the constant smearing of those who are pointing this out a little hard to understand.

    I admit I got sucked into it and got suckered, but once the bubble burst, I can't defend the guy at all. He's odious and I have to admit that all those supposed crazy people who I mocked as being wingnuts had a clearer gaze than the gauzy one I had.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.