[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

So, his chief economic advisor can't tell you about any specific policies? That seems, uhm, a little bit hard to take seriously. Really? What does the guy advise him on? Nothing at all? "Sen. Obama, you should have good economic policy. That's my advice".

barfo

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well, which is why you're doing such a poor job of interpreting what I initially wrote. I'm not talking about the specific policy proposals of his advisors, I'm talking about the specific policy proposals of Sen Obama.

Austan has a whole set of policies he'd like to enact. He views Sen. Obama as a smart, nuanced thinker who thinks in abstractions rather than specifics. Austan and his other colleagues help him to define his economic policy as Obama's own was pretty fuzzy. That fuzziness crosses policy boundaries, be it economics, defense, foreign policy or social programs.

Sen. Obama starts with a concept ("Justice", "Fairness", "Peace". etc) and then tries to fit a specific policy around it depending on what part of the law or budget is being addressed. THAT's why no one can tell me specifically why I should vote for him. His views are perceived as malleable.

Did I do a better job explaining it this time? If not, I'll happily try it again and again until you're satisfied with my answer.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by mook

Since you brought it up, could you include links to the articles you authored together? It'd be interesting to see, even outside this discussion.

Trust me, it's Sominex in typeface. I'd like to do so, but my confidentiality is pretty important to me and that would compromise it. I hope you understand.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Balian

served as ROFL ...I think I covered that already. No confirmation of a formal title. .

dee duh der.

So, the university itself saying that doesn't count?

So what does count then? *Edit

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by zagsfan20

Lol, exactly what I was thinking.

Time to think a little harder.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Trust me, it's Sominex in typeface. I'd like to do so, but my confidentiality is pretty important to me and that would compromise it. I hope you understand.

What maxiep is trying to say is he's actually George Will.

Which, btw, I consider a compliment.

[Balian]

Originally Posted by Dan

dee duh der.

So, the university itself saying that doesn't count?

So what does count then? *edit

AGAIN, what was Obama's formal title at University of Chicago???

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Balian

AGAIN, what was Obama's formal title at University of Chicago??? Let me help you out.



http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ional_law.html

So basically you're arguing that it's pronounced tow-may-tow, instead of tow-mah-tow.

Brilliant tactic.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Dan

Are you purposely being dense or do you have a hard time clicking links?

CLICK HERE



From.

The.

Horses.

Mouth.

It's splitting hairs, but if he said he was a professor at the Law School, that's different than having served as a professor at the Law School. Seriously, they care about this ...um...I mean...stuff.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Balian

I am speaking of people's perceptions, not a point of fact so thus it could not be characterize as "utterly false" or true. You could disagree with it ...is that what you were trying to get at? Of course, you could be a professor without having tenure. Reading comprehension is a good thing.

Tenured or not, it doesn't matter. He was not officially a professor. Your point is moot.

You're digging yourself such a hole and looking like an absolute fool in the process, yet you keep it up. Good work buddy.

[Balian]

Originally Posted by Dan

So basically you're arguing that it's pronounced tow-may-tow, instead of tow-mah-tow.

Brilliant tactic.

Institutions have official titles for a reason. You wished it was the tow-may-tow/tow-mah-tow situation.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well, which is why you're doing such a poor job of interpreting what I initially wrote.

I'm not talking about the specific policy proposals of his advisors, I'm talking about the specific policy proposals of Sen Obama.

I understood that much, I just assumed, being chief economic advisor, that he'd have either (a) convinced Obama to support one or more of his (Austan's) desired policies, or (b), found out what other set of policies Obama wanted to implement.

Austan has a whole set of policies he'd like to enact. He views Sen. Obama as a smart, nuanced thinker who thinks in abstractions rather than specifics. Austan and his other colleagues help him to define his economic policy as Obama's own was pretty fuzzy.

Ok, so has he succeeded in doing that (helping to define his economic policy) or has he failed? If he has succeeded, what are the defined policies? I gather that you believe he has failed, and there are no policies. Or did he just join the campaign last week, so there has not been time to discuss much?

Sen. Obama starts with a concept ("Justice", "Fairness", "Peace". etc) and then tries to fit a specific policy

A specific policy? I thought he was all vague and fuzzy?

around it depending on what part of the law or budget is being addressed. THAT's why no one can tell me specifically why I should vote for him. His views are perceived as malleable.

Did I do a better job explaining it this time? If not, I'll happily try it again and again until you're satisfied with my answer.

Actually, the part about fitting a specific policy around the part of the law or budget is pretty confusing to me (and I'm not just being snarky here). It sounds like you are saying what bothers you is not his lack of policies, but his flexibility on what those policies are. But that may be an incorrect interpretation on my part.

barfo

[Balian]

Originally Posted by R-Star

You're digging yourself such a hole and looking like an absolute fool in the process, yet you keep it up. Good work buddy.

What's Obama formal title at University of Chicago again?