[urbanrealtor]

Hey Casca,
You have made some pretty harsh allegations.
Here are some links regarding Obama’s early legislation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

http://video.chicagotribune.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?clipid1=1226539

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?

[urbanrealtor]

Hey Casca,
You have made some pretty harsh allegations.
Here are some links regarding Obama’s early legislation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

http://video.chicagotribune.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?clipid1=1226539

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?

[urbanrealtor]

Not to be a tool but why would anyone want to?

I have not been to one but really, it has been my understanding that generally the bidding starts at the price of the defaulted loan.

Unless a place is truly right side up (which seems rare these days), most auctions seem like a bad idea. There is no title insurance that I am aware of or any inspection regarding liens or condition.

Let me know if I am wrong. This is just my understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to be a tool but why would anyone want to?

I have not been to one but really, it has been my understanding that generally the bidding starts at the price of the defaulted loan.

Unless a place is truly right side up (which seems rare these days), most auctions seem like a bad idea. There is no title insurance that I am aware of or any inspection regarding liens or condition.

Let me know if I am wrong. This is just my understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to be a tool but why would anyone want to?

I have not been to one but really, it has been my understanding that generally the bidding starts at the price of the defaulted loan.

Unless a place is truly right side up (which seems rare these days), most auctions seem like a bad idea. There is no title insurance that I am aware of or any inspection regarding liens or condition.

Let me know if I am wrong. This is just my understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to be a tool but why would anyone want to?

I have not been to one but really, it has been my understanding that generally the bidding starts at the price of the defaulted loan.

Unless a place is truly right side up (which seems rare these days), most auctions seem like a bad idea. There is no title insurance that I am aware of or any inspection regarding liens or condition.

Let me know if I am wrong. This is just my understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to be a tool but why would anyone want to?

I have not been to one but really, it has been my understanding that generally the bidding starts at the price of the defaulted loan.

Unless a place is truly right side up (which seems rare these days), most auctions seem like a bad idea. There is no title insurance that I am aware of or any inspection regarding liens or condition.

Let me know if I am wrong. This is just my understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[Author]

Posts