[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]

Well lets break it into bite size pieces.

Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.

That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.

You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.

Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.

This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.

Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.

In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.

Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.

[quote=surveyor]who watches?

The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.

Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.

I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.

As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.

Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.

[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Well lets break it into bite size pieces.

Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.

That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.

You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.

Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.

This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.

Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.

In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.

Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.

[quote=surveyor]who watches?

The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.

Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.

I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.

As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.

Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.

[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Well lets break it into bite size pieces.

Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.

That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.

You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.

Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.

This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.

Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.

In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.

Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.

[quote=surveyor]who watches?

The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.

Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.

I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.

As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.

Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.

[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Well lets break it into bite size pieces.

Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.

That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.

You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.

Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.

This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.

Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.

In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.

Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.

[quote=surveyor]who watches?

The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.

Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.

I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.

As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.

Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.

[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Well lets break it into bite size pieces.

Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.

That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.

You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.

Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.

This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.

Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.

In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.

Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.

[quote=surveyor]who watches?

The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.

Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.

I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.

As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.

Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.

[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]OMG, not you dan.

<ha,ha>

Hey, what’s your middle name anyway, Hussein or Osama??

I’m Gandalf, the Grey Mullah…

Larger question, do you notice a pattern? All these people out there insinuating Obama is dumb, unqualified, uninformed, uneducated, incompetent? It seems to recur, over and over again, implication being Obama is the affirmative action candidate.

It’s racist. I believe it’s intentional, by design and probably originates with the political machines (Clinton and now Repubs), designed to undercut Obama’s support among people with possibly racist tendencies.

Both McCain and Obama are qualified to be President, two of the better candidates we’ve had in years. Obama’s an extremely smart person, by any measure out there.[/quote]

That racist bit may be true but so what?
(Here is the contrary bit in me coming out)
To quote my favorite television show, the game is the game. It was true in 2000 when the media was hating on Gore (and no, I don’t buy that as a good reason for losing) and it was true when Hillary tried to go for it.

However, the argument that he is dumb or uninformed just does not square with his record, credentials, or his political performance. If people want to disagree with his actual policies, they could make strong arguments (but crappier soundbytes). Thats was the sheer joy of the debate with surveyor. Just assertions backed up by soundbytes and underpinned by pundit pieces. Real deep.

The interesting bit is having someone I actually (mostly) agree with in a position to win.

Don’t know if he’ll make it but it sure is fun to listen to loyal bushies make fun of Obama’s misspeaks in the mean time.

Also, my last name is Cassidy but we’re from the part of Ireland that had the O’Samma clan. They had chieftans that prayed to Faeries 5 times a day.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]OMG, not you dan.

<ha,ha>

Hey, what’s your middle name anyway, Hussein or Osama??

I’m Gandalf, the Grey Mullah…

Larger question, do you notice a pattern? All these people out there insinuating Obama is dumb, unqualified, uninformed, uneducated, incompetent? It seems to recur, over and over again, implication being Obama is the affirmative action candidate.

It’s racist. I believe it’s intentional, by design and probably originates with the political machines (Clinton and now Repubs), designed to undercut Obama’s support among people with possibly racist tendencies.

Both McCain and Obama are qualified to be President, two of the better candidates we’ve had in years. Obama’s an extremely smart person, by any measure out there.[/quote]

That racist bit may be true but so what?
(Here is the contrary bit in me coming out)
To quote my favorite television show, the game is the game. It was true in 2000 when the media was hating on Gore (and no, I don’t buy that as a good reason for losing) and it was true when Hillary tried to go for it.

However, the argument that he is dumb or uninformed just does not square with his record, credentials, or his political performance. If people want to disagree with his actual policies, they could make strong arguments (but crappier soundbytes). Thats was the sheer joy of the debate with surveyor. Just assertions backed up by soundbytes and underpinned by pundit pieces. Real deep.

The interesting bit is having someone I actually (mostly) agree with in a position to win.

Don’t know if he’ll make it but it sure is fun to listen to loyal bushies make fun of Obama’s misspeaks in the mean time.

Also, my last name is Cassidy but we’re from the part of Ireland that had the O’Samma clan. They had chieftans that prayed to Faeries 5 times a day.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]OMG, not you dan.

<ha,ha>

Hey, what’s your middle name anyway, Hussein or Osama??

I’m Gandalf, the Grey Mullah…

Larger question, do you notice a pattern? All these people out there insinuating Obama is dumb, unqualified, uninformed, uneducated, incompetent? It seems to recur, over and over again, implication being Obama is the affirmative action candidate.

It’s racist. I believe it’s intentional, by design and probably originates with the political machines (Clinton and now Repubs), designed to undercut Obama’s support among people with possibly racist tendencies.

Both McCain and Obama are qualified to be President, two of the better candidates we’ve had in years. Obama’s an extremely smart person, by any measure out there.[/quote]

That racist bit may be true but so what?
(Here is the contrary bit in me coming out)
To quote my favorite television show, the game is the game. It was true in 2000 when the media was hating on Gore (and no, I don’t buy that as a good reason for losing) and it was true when Hillary tried to go for it.

However, the argument that he is dumb or uninformed just does not square with his record, credentials, or his political performance. If people want to disagree with his actual policies, they could make strong arguments (but crappier soundbytes). Thats was the sheer joy of the debate with surveyor. Just assertions backed up by soundbytes and underpinned by pundit pieces. Real deep.

The interesting bit is having someone I actually (mostly) agree with in a position to win.

Don’t know if he’ll make it but it sure is fun to listen to loyal bushies make fun of Obama’s misspeaks in the mean time.

Also, my last name is Cassidy but we’re from the part of Ireland that had the O’Samma clan. They had chieftans that prayed to Faeries 5 times a day.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]OMG, not you dan.

<ha,ha>

Hey, what’s your middle name anyway, Hussein or Osama??

I’m Gandalf, the Grey Mullah…

Larger question, do you notice a pattern? All these people out there insinuating Obama is dumb, unqualified, uninformed, uneducated, incompetent? It seems to recur, over and over again, implication being Obama is the affirmative action candidate.

It’s racist. I believe it’s intentional, by design and probably originates with the political machines (Clinton and now Repubs), designed to undercut Obama’s support among people with possibly racist tendencies.

Both McCain and Obama are qualified to be President, two of the better candidates we’ve had in years. Obama’s an extremely smart person, by any measure out there.[/quote]

That racist bit may be true but so what?
(Here is the contrary bit in me coming out)
To quote my favorite television show, the game is the game. It was true in 2000 when the media was hating on Gore (and no, I don’t buy that as a good reason for losing) and it was true when Hillary tried to go for it.

However, the argument that he is dumb or uninformed just does not square with his record, credentials, or his political performance. If people want to disagree with his actual policies, they could make strong arguments (but crappier soundbytes). Thats was the sheer joy of the debate with surveyor. Just assertions backed up by soundbytes and underpinned by pundit pieces. Real deep.

The interesting bit is having someone I actually (mostly) agree with in a position to win.

Don’t know if he’ll make it but it sure is fun to listen to loyal bushies make fun of Obama’s misspeaks in the mean time.

Also, my last name is Cassidy but we’re from the part of Ireland that had the O’Samma clan. They had chieftans that prayed to Faeries 5 times a day.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]OMG, not you dan.

<ha,ha>

Hey, what’s your middle name anyway, Hussein or Osama??

I’m Gandalf, the Grey Mullah…

Larger question, do you notice a pattern? All these people out there insinuating Obama is dumb, unqualified, uninformed, uneducated, incompetent? It seems to recur, over and over again, implication being Obama is the affirmative action candidate.

It’s racist. I believe it’s intentional, by design and probably originates with the political machines (Clinton and now Repubs), designed to undercut Obama’s support among people with possibly racist tendencies.

Both McCain and Obama are qualified to be President, two of the better candidates we’ve had in years. Obama’s an extremely smart person, by any measure out there.[/quote]

That racist bit may be true but so what?
(Here is the contrary bit in me coming out)
To quote my favorite television show, the game is the game. It was true in 2000 when the media was hating on Gore (and no, I don’t buy that as a good reason for losing) and it was true when Hillary tried to go for it.

However, the argument that he is dumb or uninformed just does not square with his record, credentials, or his political performance. If people want to disagree with his actual policies, they could make strong arguments (but crappier soundbytes). Thats was the sheer joy of the debate with surveyor. Just assertions backed up by soundbytes and underpinned by pundit pieces. Real deep.

The interesting bit is having someone I actually (mostly) agree with in a position to win.

Don’t know if he’ll make it but it sure is fun to listen to loyal bushies make fun of Obama’s misspeaks in the mean time.

Also, my last name is Cassidy but we’re from the part of Ireland that had the O’Samma clan. They had chieftans that prayed to Faeries 5 times a day.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]Possible racism.[/quote]

So just because I have Urban in my handle, you assume I am black?

That was a joke.

Ar Ar

-Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]Possible racism.[/quote]

So just because I have Urban in my handle, you assume I am black?

That was a joke.

Ar Ar

-Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=gandalf]Possible racism.[/quote]

So just because I have Urban in my handle, you assume I am black?

That was a joke.

Ar Ar

-Dan

[Author]

Posts