[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I used to think the election cycle was too long, but now I'm starting to see the wisdom of it. The more we learn about Obama, the more phoney and hypocritical he looks. By the time November rolls around the entire country may be revulsed by this slick huckster named Barack Hussein Obama.

He has a long way to go before he matches McCain for being a phony and hypocrite.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by maxiep

A brilliant response (and yes, set up your sarcasm meter please). Let's go through the actions:

1. ATTENDED a church for 20 years that preaches a message many Americans find offensive. Only distanced himself from the church when it became politically expedient to do so. MARRIED his wife and BAPTIZED his children at this same church.

2. AGREED to engage Tony Rezco to be one of his primary fundraisers. SIGNED a purchase document on his home knowing that the only way to afford it was by having Mr. Rezco buy the adjacent vacant land. PURCHASED the vacant land at a below-market price from Mr. Rezco. That is most definately not arms-length.

3. ASKED Bill Ayres to host a fundraiser at his home.

4. APPOINTED Michael Pfleger to his Catholics for Obama committee. ASKED Father Pfleger to campaign for him.

Lots of actions, all of which were his choice. I don't see many of the people you described above interacting socially with the people they are charged with arresting, detaining, capturing, analyzing, etc.

Nor have you offered any indication that Obama socialized with any of these people. In all 4 cases, these were business moves. He is in the politics business, after all. I have never seen any evidence that he "socialized" with these people.

The only one that concerns me is that he attends A church, as it indicates pandering to the least educated and most gullible voters simply to get their vote. I'm pretty sure he's not really dumb enough to believe in an all-powerful mythical being looking over us.

As for buying property for less than market value, only an idiot would do otherwise.

[liekomgj4ck]

someone give Obama a nickle!

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Nor have you offered any indication that Obama socialized with any of these people. In all 4 cases, these were business moves. He is in the politics business, after all. I have never seen any evidence that he "socialized" with these people.

The only one that concerns me is that he attends A church, as it indicates pandering to the least educated and most gullible voters simply to get their vote. I'm pretty sure he's not really dumb enough to believe in an all-powerful mythical being looking over us.

As for buying property for less than market value, only an idiot would do otherwise.

Wow, are you that desperate to defend Sen. Obama? He remarked many times that Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger he considered to be spiritual fathers. Both have been over to his house on a number of occasions. THe same thing with Bill Ayers. He was not only served on a board with him, he was a friend of his. And as for Tony Rezco, what part of helping him buy his house don't you understand? You don't expose yourself to that kind of transaction unless he's a trusted friend.

Despite all these explanations, all you really need to know is what he says when he distanced himself from all these people: It's always someways some variant of "This isn't the person I knew...". In other words, he knew them more than on a business level.

As for your remarkable real estate investing strategy, I'm a partner in a real estate merchant bank with nine figures under management. What do you do for a living? We purchase real estate at market value all the time, as do many of our competitors. I guess you're just really smart and the other professionals that have made significant yields for our investors are "idiots". I await more of your insights on real estate acquisition.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

So, you are criticizing him for his marketing message.

Like most marketing messages ("straight talk express", "compassionate conservatism") it's just fluff.

Maybe, given your stated ability to look past the rhetoric... maybe you should start doing that. The marketing message is for people who aren't willing to think about the issues. That's not you.

barfo

That's not marketing; that's what he stands for. Remember, Obama claims to be a different kind of politician. If he acknowledges that he's no different than Sen. Clinton, she would have been the better choice.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

Ok, so when you said he stands for NOTHING, you meant that he stands for an activist government. That's something other than "a trace of hyperbole", if you ask me, when we are talking about someone running to be the head of said government.

He stands for "post partisan politics" yet he doesn't cross the aisle.

He stands for a "post racial candidacy" but he ridicules working class white people.

He stands for "change" and "hope" but seems to have one answer for everything: more government. What he has no idea how to do is execute the plan. That's what I mean by standing for nothing. He has fuzzy goals (fairness, equality, getting out of Iraq) but has no idea how to achieve them.

Originally Posted by barfo

I'd say that's the marketing message again.

barfo

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

That's not marketing; that's what he stands for. Remember, Obama claims to be a different kind of politician.

Sounds like marketing to me.

If he acknowledges that he's no different than Sen. Clinton, she would have been the better choice.

Why would she have been the better choice, in your opinion? And (at this stage of the game) why does that even matter?

barfo

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

Sounds like marketing to me.

It's always nice when someone believes their opinion to be fact.

Originally Posted by barfo

Why would she have been the better choice, in your opinion? And (at this stage of the game) why does that even matter?

barfo

Because she's predictable. She has a record and has survived scrutiny that Sen. Obama never has. She's a better candidate that found her voice too late. Unlike Sen. Obama, she can appeal to the voters in the key swing states. Her electoral math was always better than Sen. Obama's. She also beat him handily in every single one on one debate.

I've never seen a candidate limp to the finish the way I did Sen. Obama. Any other candidate given the mood of the country would have a double digit lead right now.

As for whether or not it matters, that I can't say. We'll see whether it matters in November. McCain is one of the weakest presidential candidates I've ever seen, and I've seen Mondale, Dukakis and Dole .

[Dornado]

Hey, Maxiep...


Remember when you told me that Obama stood for nothing.... and then I gave you all sorts of links to his stances on a wide variety of issues.... and you wrote them off without reading them as you criticized them for not containing quotes from Obama... even though each topic had a link to a speech Obama made?

And then you told me you knew enough about how he approached a problem that his stance on the issues didn't matter? And then you called me stupid?

And now you're still playing the "but what are his stances on the issues!?!?" card?

Sweet.

[zagsfan20]

Duh, he's a terrorist. I mean anyone with the name Barack Hussein Osama is a terrorist.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

He stands for "change" and "hope" but seems to have one answer for everything: more government. What he has no idea how to do is execute the plan. That's what I mean by standing for nothing. He has fuzzy goals (fairness, equality, getting out of Iraq) but has no idea how to achieve them.

Well, I read his economic speech from yesterday and it seemed to me to be chock full of very specific plans. I could certainly understand if you disagreed with some of them (I disagree with some of them) but to say they are fuzzy just isn't consistent with the words on the page.

barfo

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

It's always nice when someone believes their opinion to be fact.

That's an odd thing to say. My statement was that it sounded like marketing to me. That explicitly identifies it as my opinion. I'm not sure how you know whether I believe my opinions are facts.

Because she's predictable. She has a record and has survived scrutiny that Sen. Obama never has. She's a better candidate that found her voice too late. Unlike Sen. Obama, she can appeal to the voters in the key swing states. Her electoral math was always better than Sen. Obama's. She also beat him handily in every single one on one debate.

That's all your opinion (I'm just telling you since you told me) and not facts.

Did you vote for her? Just asking... maybe you should have if you didn't.

I've never seen a candidate limp to the finish the way I did Sen. Obama. Any other candidate given the mood of the country would have a double digit lead right now.

Carter in 80? Ford in 76?

barfo