- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM #731869November 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM #731870
SD Realtor
Participant“I like Obama because, personality wise, he enbodies my generation and my ideals better. Some people like Reagan or Sarah Palin, or Haley Barbour for the same reason.
Plus I like Obama simply for the fact that he’s too perfect and riles up so many of his opponents who are eager to find faults but can’t find any.”
***********
No contest. Markmax how do you expect Ron Paul to be able to compete against somebody who is “too perfect”. Brian I think you won hands down!
November 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM #731873UCGal
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Plus I like Obama simply for the fact that he’s too perfect and riles up so many of his opponents who are eager to find faults but can’t find any.[/quote]I want some of what he’s smoking.
I’m a lefty from way back and am the first to admit that Obama has flaws – too many of them. I’ll probably vote for him again because I don’t like any of the candidates on the other side – but I’m definitely disappointed, big time.
Brian – you would have been better making a statement like “Barack Obama is the most interesting person ever”. That’s the argument that is being used for Ron Paul.
I don’t want interesting. I want competency and willingness to push for change.
November 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM #731874briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
No contest. Markmax how do you expect Ron Paul to be able to compete against somebody who is “too perfect”. Brian I think you won hands down![/quote]Dismiss it all you want, but the truth is that there’s a psychological, human-nature element to the hatred of Obama.
Obama is a good-looking, high IQ, athletic, Harvard lawyer. He’s not just a regular lawyer but a constitutional scholar.
His detractors would like to rationalize his success and assign reasons other that Obama’s own talents for his rise to power.
Unfortunately for his haters, Obama doesn’t suffer from any character flaws.
Now compare Obama to his detractors who tend to be the fat-ass, ill-bred, low-education types.
[quote=SD Realtor]
The debate I would pay to read about would be Brian and his passion for Obama and the young rookie upstart Markmax and his blind faith for Ron Paul.Let the games begin![/quote]
BTW, I like many of the things Ron Paul stands for. Ron Paul is not in competition with Obama. I like Ron Paul’s nerdy personality and his anti-establishment stances. The problem is that he’s too simplistic and holds kooky ideas.
Obama detractors tend to be the Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Rick Perry and Tea Party supporters.
November 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM #731875Guest[quote=UCGal]
I’m a lefty from way back and am the first to admit that Obama has flaws – too many of them. I’ll probably vote for him again because I don’t like any of the candidates on the other side – but I’m definitely disappointed, big time.
[/quote]It’s depends what flaws you’re talking about.
For example among Black leaders, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Harold Ford, Jr. suffer from plenty of character flaws. Those are the characters flaws that Obama’s detractors, on the right, would like to attack him on.
But Obama is pretty much a perfect family man. His education is impeccable as are his speech and demeanor.
Now if you’re talking of governance flaws, I may agree with you.
But still Obama’s governing style is of the establishment. He hasn’t brought to Washington the black-style nepotism kind of governance the status quo was afraid of. The bankers and the elite business establishment are fairly happy with Obama.
But the populist White orthodoxy has been badly financially shaken by the recession and is very afraid of the changes Obama represents. In that respect, Obama has brought real change to America.
The confluence of globalization, the financial crisis, and the election of Barack Obama, is sign to the populist White orthodoxy that we won’t continue to have business as usual. America was never theirs nor theirs to reclaim.
In the future, the myth of exceptionalism is not enough. To thrive in the future you need education, skills and talents.
[quote=UCGal]
Brian – you would have been better making a statement like “Barack Obama is the most interesting person ever”. That’s the argument that is being used for Ron Paul.I don’t want interesting. I want competency and willingness to push for change.[/quote]
I agree that competency and willingness to push for change are key. The competency is there, but the willing to push for change is lacking. In that regard I’m disappointed as well.
But still, I’m happy to that Obama is giving heart burns to his detractors. I’m enjoying the entertainment.
November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM #731876SK in CV
Participant[quote=briansd1] He’s not just a regular lawyer but a constitutional scholar.
[/quote]
I’d be kinda inclinded to drop that argument. He was a guest lecturer. (And yes, at the school he lectured at, guest lecturers were considered professors, I’m not arguing against him using “professor” on his resume.)
It’s more an issue of what it takes to have that kind of job. My neice went to Boalt Hall at Berkeley. Graduated right in the middle of her class. She’s a bright woman. Practiced family law for a few years. Had a baby. Before she was ready to go back to work full time, she took a job as a family law lecturer at UCLA. She wasn’t a family law scholar. She worked for a firm that did divorces for three years. That was her experience. She didn’t write any deep intellectual analysis of family law. I’m sure it looks good on her resume for when she wants to get back to practicing law full time, but that little part time job doesn’t make her the go-to person on family law. It makes her someone that needed some part-time work for extra money. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama’s stint as a college lecturer/professor is any different.
I know Berkeley is not Harvard. And UCLA might not be U of Chicago. But they’re not far off.
November 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM #731877ParticipantSome of what you said has merit. Unfortunately I think some hate Obama because he is black which is sad. I think there are alot who don’t like his policies and you seem to take that as a personal attack against him.
I would say Ron Paul very much is in competition with Obama. He wants to be president doesn’t he? I don’t believe that Ron Paul would support the massive federal spending that Obama supports. As you stated, Obama is endearing to you because he represents your ideals, I feel that Ron Paul is a heck of alot closer to representing my ideals then Obama. In that same breath I would agree that he’s to simplistic and yes I think some of his ideas are a bit kooky.
I believe Obama is very likeable for the reasons you pointed out however I don’t believe his rise to power is remotely based on his talents. You refer to him as a constitutional scholar and I would disagree with that. Someone like Ron Paul who has toiled through years of congressional service to me is much more talented then Obama and has worked much harder to achieve what he really believes in, albeit with little success. Obamas term of service prior to being the president was akin to a cup of coffee in the big leagues. I would refer to Obama as being very gifted and smart and his party quickly realized that and then threw every ounce of support behind him. He is tall, he is good looking, he is very well spoken, he has charisma and he has the ability to make people believe in him and like him almost regardless of his policies.
There is no other candidate like that and there probably will not be for a long long time. Regardless of any polls or public opinion, or whether any of his programs have worked, will work, or will simply add more debt, he will most likely win. He will convince people his policies have worked and that more policies will follow that will help them even more. I may not agree with that, and certainly you will agree with that, but in the end, more people will buy in as will their unions, and other organizations.
Not the same for Paul or for anyone else in the GOP for that matter.
November 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM #731885Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=briansd1] He’s not just a regular lawyer but a constitutional scholar.
[/quote]
I’d be kinda inclinded to drop that argument. He was a guest lecturer. (And yes, at the school he lectured at, guest lecturers were considered professors, I’m not arguing against him using “professor” on his resume.)
It’s more an issue of what it takes to have that kind of job. My neice went to Boalt Hall at Berkeley. Graduated right in the middle of her class. She’s a bright woman. Practiced family law for a few years. Had a baby. Before she was ready to go back to work full time, she took a job as a family law lecturer at UCLA. She wasn’t a family law scholar. She worked for a firm that did divorces for three years. That was her experience. She didn’t write any deep intellectual analysis of family law. I’m sure it looks good on her resume for when she wants to get back to practicing law full time, but that little part time job doesn’t make her the go-to person on family law. It makes her someone that needed some part-time work for extra money. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama’s stint as a college lecturer/professor is any different.
I know Berkeley is not Harvard. And UCLA might not be U of Chicago. But they’re not far off.[/quote]
SK: Boalt might not be Harvard Law School, but, you’re right, it’s damn close. I know quite a few lawyers from both Stanford Law and Boalt, and Boalt is considered Stanford’s equal in many areas. Also, not all law schools are created equal and not all law students are, either. Area of practice is key, along with clerking/interning and where the bulk of your study and practice lies.
Regarding Obama’s University of Chicago time, this from FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
To claim Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” is something of a reach.
November 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM #731887urbanrealtor
ParticipantSD_R/ Adam:
You make a very cogent and thoughtful set of points.
If most of his detractors were that intelligent in their criticisms, I would not be as annoyed and discouraged with political debate as I a currently am.For example, there is a case to be made that low taxes spur industry to greater action.
However, as a percentage of gdp, tax revenue is pretty low.
However, dressing up in 18th century attire and mocking the Sons of Liberty to complain about having already-pretty-low taxes is not a strong way to make that case.There is a case to be made for lower spending.
A damn strong one too.
However, loads of legislative gridlock while holding sacrosanct the (non-performing) “job-creators” is not a compelling argument.Its like some weird world where Ayn Rand counts as economic scholarship (and Green Day counts as punk and “Twilight” counts as literature and the Mikey Show counts as thoughtful discourse)
My point is this:
Thanks for improving the conversation.November 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM #731888Guest[quote=SD Realtor] I don’t believe his rise to power is remotely based on his talents. You refer to him as a constitutional scholar and I would disagree with that. Someone like Ron Paul who has toiled through years of congressional service to me is much more talented then Obama and has worked much harder to achieve what he really believes in, albeit with little success. Obamas term of service prior to being the president was akin to a cup of coffee in the big leagues. I would refer to Obama as being very gifted and smart and his party quickly realized that and then threw every ounce of support behind him. He is tall, he is good looking, he is very well spoken, he has charisma and he has the ability to make people believe in him and like him almost regardless of his policies. [/quote]
You bring up an interesting point.
Some of the resentment towards Obama is that he hasn’t “paid his dues.” He rose up too soon, too fast.
The fact that his dad was not even an American citizen makes people mad.
Obama’s White mother married colored foreigners, worked abroad and took her children with her and educated them abroad. In many quarters of the populist White orthodoxy, that would be akin to renouncing citizenship and family.
I’m OK with Obama’s rise to power. I feel that in an increasingly globalized world, it’s OK to jump ahead in line. That’s what renews and keeps society fresh.
BTW, SD Realtor, one problem I have with unions is the seniority concept. Just because a person is senior doesn’t mean that the person is most qualified. Oftentimes it means that senior employees feel they can slack off and not do much because they already paid their dues.
November 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM #731891Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To claim Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” is something of a reach.[/quote]Ok, I can agree with that.
But, if recall, Allan, you yourself referred to Obama as something akin to a constitutional scholar when you made the argument that Obama should know better when it comes to civil liberties (Guantanamo, Patrict Act, etc…)
November 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM #731892Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Boalt might not be Harvard Law School, but, you’re right, it’s damn close. I know quite a few lawyers from both Stanford Law and Boalt, and Boalt is considered Stanford’s equal in many areas. Also, not all law schools are created equal and not all law students are, either. Area of practice is key, along with clerking/interning and where the bulk of your study and practice lies.
Regarding Obama’s University of Chicago time, this from FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
To claim Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” is something of a reach.[/quote]
In all fairness, a lot of not-primarily-research schools assign lots of classes and lectures to individuals they refer to as “professors”.
Research schools consider publication and original research to be essential to professorial endeavors.
In other words:
At UCSD, Obama would be called a lecturer (basically a teacher) and at SDSU or USD, he would be called a professor.November 1, 2011 at 1:37 PM #731893ParticipantWait a minute… the Mikey show is not thoughtful discourse???
The real twilight zone would be if Obama and Ron Paul woke up with swapped brains. Would an Obama who espoused the policies of Ron Paul be embraced by his party? Certainly Ron Paul has not been. That would be interesting…
The other unanswered question would be if the world turned upside down and Rob Paul did win we would most likely see gridlock that would make the current gridlock look like a racetrack.
Hard to have hope these days but I won’t throw in the towel.
November 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #731894Anonymous
Guest[quote]To claim Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” is something of a reach.[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding.
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
He’s about as much of a “constitutional law scholar” that someone can be while simultaneously holding political office.
I think the man has spent some time studying the Constitution. And the fact that one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation authorized him to teach on the topic suggests that he’s convinced some pretty knowledgeable folks that he knows a few things about the subject.
At least he knows better than to act as if he is the sole authority on the interpretation, unlike Ron Paul.
November 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM #731895Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To claim Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” is something of a reach.[/quote]Ok, I can agree with that.
But, if recall, Allan, you yourself referred to Obama as something akin to a constitutional scholar when you made the argument that Obama should know better when it comes to civil liberties (Guantanamo, Patrict Act, etc…)[/quote]
Brian: I absolutely did and still hold that position. My point and I used FactCheck to make it is this: This is a good example of the subtle (and sometimes unsubtle) “inflation” that goes on when pols burnish their resumes. To listen to certain Obama supporters, he’s the Second Coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Which is not to take away from his obvious intellect. As I’ve said before, he’s a smart and engaging guy and completely in over his head. Dubya was also in over his head, but not nearly so smart and engaging.
Obama should know better when it comes to civil liberties and if that LA Times article didn’t get your blood boiling, I don’t know what will. We are seeing complete impunity now when it comes to “state secrets”, which is an exceptional dangerous term, in and of itself. We’re content to natter away about Marbury v. Madison, or Dred Scott, or Brown v. Board of Education and are ignoring the deliberate destruction of some of our most essential liberties and freedoms.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.