San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

He's gonna be your next President - Enjoy :)

Hmmm.. he said the amount of oil you can expect to get from offshore drilling in this country is the same amount you'd save if everyone tuned up their cars and kept the tires properly inflated. How does this make the Harvard/Columbia/Occidental grad dumber than a box of rocks? It's not like he said this would solve the fuel crisis.

That "dumber than a box of rocks" phrase sounds kinda redneck-ish... My Louisiana-born mom always has little phrases like that.

Anyhoo, aren't you the same chicken little always crying the inventory is falling, the inventory is falling?

Just kidding. I'm still undecided on my vote (especially after reading partypup's insights) so I'm not defending or attacking anyone.

So I am only one who finds it funny and appropriate that this post's author has a reference to mental illness in his handle?

But then I must just be a liberal spambot.

Call it schaudenfraude, but I enjoy listening to right-wing partisans go ballistic about Obama (or Hillary, or Pelosi, or Kennedy). I even egg them on from time to time. I've had enough of the partisan bullshit.

Enjoy the next 8 years, schizo. You're a dipshit.

Gee gandalf your so erudite and intelligent. Grace us with some more of your keen intellect and eloquent discourse.

"The last bastion of a person with no argument . . . ad hominem attacks."

Grace us with some more of your keen intellect and eloquent discourse.

Are you kidding? You thread is nonsense. It shows neither comprehension of energy issues nor tact. As a matter of fact, it exemplifies everything wrong with the country today. His post was perfectly fitting.

Hannity.com ... HAHAHAHAA

Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every "negro" in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

Only thing that's breathtaking are your comments, casca.

Suggesting Obama doesn't work hard, never had a job, skipped out on his education, got where he is because of destiny (affirmative action?), will only get elected because of 'negro' votes -- Wow. The unspoken issue in this election is race. Your comments appeal to racial stereotypes about African-Americans. If they were true, that would be one thing, but they're not. They grossly false, not backed up by the facts, not even close. Do the research on Obama's background.

Reach down and pull the panties out of your crack. Everyone knows that Gandolf is the second coming of Marion.

It's not wrong to register any legal voter. It is wrong to register the dead, and sham voters, ala ACORN, your current love's previous pseudo-employer.

My comment was directed at what appears to be a fairly whacky strategy. Most campaigns ID probable voters, and try to appeal to them. Their strategy, based on race, is to go after the improbable voters. That's how he beat HRC in the primaries early on, because he caught her flat-footed. In a general, it's probably not a viable strategy. Think about it. If the D's could have been counting those votes all these years, don't you think they'd be doing it?

Finally, for all of you race card playa's, the racists are those who vote on the basis of skin color. I will vote on the basis of good character and patriotism, neither of which Bobama has.

casca: To what do you attribute this statement?

"There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job..."

What facts? Backup your statement. There is no basis.

In the same post, you rail about registering 'negros' to vote, as if there's something wrong with that. BTW, I haven't heard anybody use the term 'negro' in ages.

You can call it character and patriotism, whatever helps you rationalize it. I call it partisan and racist.

Obama will be a one term wonder at best. Once he's in and all the sheep realize he's just another charlatan he'll be a memory in 2012.

Only if Obama changes his mind now and supports offshore drilling, cutting government, keeping taxes low, and not pulling out of Iraq too quickly . . . In other words, McCain.

If the Dem's don't change their stance on drilling, Obama will lose just like Gore did and just like Kerry did. In sum, the more things "change" with the Democrats, the more they stay the same.

meadandale, on a more level note, you may be correct. The next four years are going to be enormously challenging, whether it's McCain or Obama (both of whom are more than qualified to serve, BTW). Our country is in a deep hole on a number of issues -- the economy, energy, foreign policy, terrorism, corruption, legal/judicial, etc. I hope we're able to make progress.

gandalf: I think the next four years is pretty much a suicide mission for either McCain or Obama. The hole is so deep at this point (similar to when Carter came to power) that I don't see either of them being able (at least in a four year term) to make significant headway. You need at least two terms to make a difference and, given the way things are, neither would be afforded the opportunity.

The country (and the opposition party) would hold them up as a scapegoat and they'd be done after the first term.

I think we should hire Vladimir Putin to run things for a while. That mofo looks like he gets s**t done. Of course, we'd all wind up wearing little fur hats with red stars on them, but it's a small price to pay.

Not so much luchabee.

There's a larger issue here, which is that we need to get back to a point where there's cooperation between parties and a civil tone. Opposing political parties were never the enemies of America, and vice versa. Ever since the awful Clintons ("The Liars"), amplified by the "Crazy Base" Bush fruits/freaks, the partisan fringe has pretty much taken over debate, divide and conquer for political gain.

These partisan bums who post here? They're a case in point. Very little substantive criticism or discussion. Mostly dishonest lies, exaggerations, rumors, slander, innuendo, statements taken out of context, attacks by association, subtle racism in the case of Obama.

This isn't by accident, it's by design. It starts with focus-group-tested talking points that get propogated out with machine-like efficiency through 'opinion leaders', 'message-men' and media whores, picked up and passed on by partisans across the country in conversations, emails, blogs and airport bathroooms. It's no coincidence we hear the same bullshit over and over again. It's propoganda and it's insidious.

Make a decision to get out of the gutter, to raise the bar. We have deadly serious business before our country, wars in the Middle East, a faltering economy, corruption and profiteering, a number of grave issues. Moving forward is going to require a better country than the past 20 years of Clinton-Bush boomer-generation erectile dysfunction.

Yes, you are Marion reborn. I will not parlay with you. You resort to the rhetorical device of lying, and it is impossible to reason with those willing to lie. I do understand though, since it is part of the ethos of your party.

I suggest that anyone who spends as much time and effort here thumping the tub for your side as you do, would be more productively engaged looking for a job.

I could not agree more. Sorry, forgot to add the qoute from meanandale

This seems apropos:

The following is a letter reportedly sent to DNC treasurer Andy Tobias. It was sent by "one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns."

It was sent as a direct response to comments made by Tobias that she [the donor] could not see the forest through the trees.

Dear Andy,

So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.

...Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.

Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.

Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.

In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.

...Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?

Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.

Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.

At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,
wink.

...[Obama] is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.

But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.

Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.

All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf....er....he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don't post.

Bored now.

Dan

Only a fool argues with a jackass.

Hi Casca –

I think Gandalf is simply asking you to support your earlier statement, “There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job”

Were you speaking about Obama when you said this? And if so, could you please explain.

I have an idea..

we keep OT topics in the off topic forum? Wow? Rocket science!!!

Excuse me? I thought he threw the race card as an opener? He is that tedious sort of soul willing to say anything to win.

Let's review the bidding:

Bobama went off to Occidental, a hotbed of liberal shitheadery, in 1981. Seven years later, he shows up at Harvard to go to law school. In the interim, he claimed to be the Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland on Chicago's South Side. Anyone who knows Chicago, knows that Roseland is a sham community with no residents. It is the piece of dirt that surrounds the airport, and is completely owned and run by the mob. This was when he went to work for Tony Rezko.

At Harvard, he becomes the President of the Law Review without ever writing a single article. One suspects the soft racism of low expectations. It's just as racist to choose someone for a job by the color of their skin as to deny one. Bobama stays off the record, collects his Magnum cum Loaded, and heads back to Chitown.

Two years later he parks his shingle at a law firm where he had no clients, and did no work. He also becomes a "Visiting Professor" of ConnLaw at UofC. One might wonder, would this not require advanced study of some sort, or at least publishing a book? Not if you're a democrat. Is this a great country or what?

In 1996 he inherited his state senate seat, and became Rezko's stooge in the statehouse. From then on, he's been living off the fat of the electorate.

QED, he's never had a job.

All I want is a President who has made at least one seven figure deal in his lifetime. Obama is all fluff and no substance. He is so eloquent, yet naive to the facts. I don't want the car salesman running this country I want the owner of the dealership.

Ok, rebutting nearly every point above is going to take toO long, but it's got to be done:

Occidental: no idea what the political leanings of an entire college/university are, but I certainly know staunch republicans who attended "liberal" liberal arts colleges and still came out dyed-in-the-wool republicans. That statement is completely illogical.

President of Harvard Law Review: Being the president of any school's "Law Review" is not a writing job. You participate, with faculty who oversee the publication and provide continuity, in choosing scholarly articles generally written by legal scholars, judges and sometimes students. Most likely he paid his dues prior to becoming President as a lesser editor in a prior year--and may have written a case comment or note that simply wasn't published--not all of them are. You, in particular, would have no way of knowing whether he wrote anything or not unless he or someone who knows his work well, disclosed it. He probably spent his time as president editing, cite checking, fact checking and generally performing tasks of an editor of a publication.

(From the Harvard LR website: Second year editors generally wrote Recent Cases, and occasionally a few wrote Notes. Most Notes, however, were written by third-year members of the Board. The President took primary responsibility for the selection and editing of articles, but he often called on third-year members of the Board for assistance in this task.)

Some schools put out 1 or 2 publications a year under 1 editor, Harvard publishes every month because they are the gold standard. Law review members are selected thus: Using a competitive process that takes into account first-year grades, an editing exercise, and a written commentary on a court decision, The Harvard Law Review selects between 41 and 43 editors annually from the second-year Law School class, which numbers 560.

Two editors from each of first-year class's seven sections (fourteen in all) are selected half by their first year grades and half by their scores on the writing competition. Another twenty are selected solely on their scores on the writing competition. The other seven to nine are selected by a discretionary committee, either to fulfill the review's race-based affirmative action program, to select students who just missed the cut by either of the other two processes, or by some other criteria as the committee sees fit. (Wikipedia).

So, Casca, your view of his Harvard experience is nothing short of ignorant.

Private practice: most junior practicing lawyers do a LOT of work but the work is for someone else's clients (partners). I am not sure how you could obtain hard data that he "did no work." If he got a paycheck, he was working... And two years is about average for most beginning lawyers to put in at a firm before moving on to the next step in the career path, unless they are seeking partnership.

UofC professorship: There is a great article in the NY Times (you probably don't read that much, the reading level might be a bit above your ability) on his years as a ConLaw professor. No, you don't have to have any special study to be a law professor other than to have obtained stellar grades in the subject you wish to teach (as well as in most other classes in law school). UofC is a fairly conservative law school, so his being offered (but declining) tenure there says something about his ability. And, to date, he has written two books--both autobiographical in nature.

Senate seat: can't really speak to this as there is not much factual basis in these claims.

US Senate: I remember reading that he ran a great campaign that involved a lot of grass roots work. I don't see anything wrong with reaching out to people who feel disenfranchised and offering them a voice.

So your post is just another not-so-subtle racist comment: just another jobless black man, eh? You are sickening.

If that's your idea of a rebuttal, I hope you're not a lawyer. Allow me to tighten up your drivel:

Since one may find a republican on campus, then a university is not a steaming pile of liberalism.

You conveniently skip the Roseland/Rezko connection.

Being President of Harvard Law Review imputes something, I'm not sure what. It's hardly a job. My view of HLS is nothing short of unimpressed.

He didn't have any clients at the practice or try any cases because he was a stooge for more senior lawyers.

He went from visiting lecturer/fellow to being offered tenure at UofC all without publishing so much as an oped. I guess that whole publish or perish thing is history. He was by then of course a state senator. I'm shocked to see a Chicago politician offered a sinecure.

Now the State Senate years are a mystery, since there are no records, none, nada. All we really know is that he carried water for Rezko, and was present on a number of occasions.

He's led the life of a privileged parasite. From prep school through two private universities, to the toniest law school in the land, he never flipped a burger. Since then, he's never had to be accountable for a bottom line. That would make him unqualified for MOST grown up work.

Hey Casca,
You have made some pretty harsh allegations.
Here are some links regarding Obama's early legislation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/1...

http://video.chicagotribune.com/global/v...

Also, it is pretty common to have new lawyers to a firm (especially ones without a real resume) to start basically as assistants. If you have seen how the firms push these guys I don't think you would criticize that he is lazy.

Do you really consider the work as a legislator in the last 11 years to be totally irrelevant?

Wow, casca. That's racist.

What you've basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn't work, doesn't have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That's RACISM in a nutshell.

What stands out the most is the statements you've made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you're not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you're also a racist. You're more like marion than you realize.

The only thing you've mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can't be 'associated' with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.

All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It's depressing to watch a 'class' site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.