[urbanrealtor]

Here is the section with my lovely description of the redc auction I attended with a client.

The foreclosure auction is different from the developer auctions (eg: unpublished reserves).

But still read and get an idea of what sucks and what can go sideways.

http://piggington.com/what_do_you_think_the_winning_bid_will_be

[urbanrealtor]

Here is the section with my lovely description of the redc auction I attended with a client.

The foreclosure auction is different from the developer auctions (eg: unpublished reserves).

But still read and get an idea of what sucks and what can go sideways.

http://piggington.com/what_do_you_think_the_winning_bid_will_be

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[Author]

Posts