Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

We decided we wanted to buy the house in I think April of 2004, but for a variety of reasons (E.G.'s job, the homeowner's preferences), didn't close until July of 2004. We did the lock in April or May I think, right when Krugman's columns were full of doom and gloom.

Oh, by "get a lock on a rate", you meant "closing the mortage deal early", not "preferring a fixed mortage over a floating one". I see. Now it makes sense.

0 Replies

It wasn't quite closing it early, just locking in the current rate to use when we DID close. So if for example, the current rate is 4.5% and it looks like by the time we were ready to close it would be 7%, we'd pay a certain amount of money to "lock" the rate -- be able to use the 4.5% rate when we closed, even if the rate was 7% by then. (In fact, it was 4.25% -- something like that. All of the numbers are just for illustrative purposes, I don't remember specifics.) We couldn't un-lock, that's just a gamble we took, and I heavily relied on Krugman when making the gamble.

0 Replies

Okay. I understand the scenario now.

0 Replies

This "thing" with O'bama and Novak has me somewhat concerned as does the "Social Security Crisis" and "illegal aliens/drivers licenses" It seems to me these are contrived issues emanating from right-wing talking points; responding to them is total a disintegration of legitimate debate issues. Not to say that O'bama is the only one doing that.

0 Replies

"a disintegration of legitimate debate issues" seems to me to presuppose that someone's been legitimately debating to start with. What I've seen on both GOP and Dem debates is a bunch of one-upping and posturing, interspersed lightly with some mention of legitimate issues.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

This "thing" with O'bama and Novak has me somewhat concerned as does the "Social Security Crisis" and "illegal aliens/drivers licenses" It seems to me these are contrived issues emanating from right-wing talking points; responding to them is total a disintegration of legitimate debate issues. Not to say that O'bama is the only one doing that.

"Contrived" issues? Ooooookay, great post, dys. I love it when you attempt to make a serious post once in a while.

Obama ahead of Hillary in Iowa? Go Obama!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312245,00.html

Is it Hillary's incompetence or Obama's brilliance that is causing her to lose ground?

0 Replies

I think it's her dirty tricks. They're starting to backfire.

0 Replies

What are you doing talking about these people as if they are some sort of serious persons.

They are after power. Pure and simple. Power over you and to some extent me. Everybody. The world. The Universe!!!.

And your primary system seems to favour those who want it the most which means in this highly attenuated zone, so rareified actually that your talking about it in these serious terms is laughable, that they started the project in their teens or just after.

We all have such fantasies when young when we see a movie with a strong,handsome chap authoritatively barking down the phone ordering great movements of the "other"-- the "not-self". And the trappings that go with such things. Those getting this far in this race got bitten bad.

And basically those of us who shrugged it off when we realised how terrible it would be to do it for real and how much messing about was necessary to get to do don't care for the types who haven't. Your satirists pluck that string. We don't overmuch love them.

It's the same here. Churchill had glory thrust upon him but since then it's been all this way. Harold Wilson was photographed in front of No10 when he was in short pants. Mr Heseltine signed an autograph with "A future PM" flourish at Uni. Mrs Thatcher--sheesh!!! etc. The resultant apathy is palpable. Blair was a blurr. Check voting statistics. Reality TV is where reality is now.

And the activists are hoping to share in the diluted parts of power which is why they have to pick a side, usually, if they are any good, after much thought, and then get the homework done and learn the brief always allowing room, as snood caught soz doing up above, for some leeway in case one's first choice bums-out. All the while trying to look civilised and caring and concerned on a range of issues whenever asked about them expressed in a string of meaningless cliches and tried and tested facial gestures and making sure one's efforts don't go un-noticed.

It's called "Entryism", as it might well be.

But we can do it differently. There's a Jeremy Clarkson For PM movement going on here. If it had enough support, and it isn't doing so bad, we can get a doddering old hack with a safe seat to blow and there he would be. Or make him a Lord. BTW- he's the presenter of Top Gear which likes Global Warming, fast cars and birds. Global warming when in the pub discussing things, fast cars when they are giving it the gun up the turnpike and birds when they are having a cuddle up on location. He smokes as well and hasn't much patience with MPs.

We can do it your way as well or anyway we want. We are not hamstrung with a set-in-stone set of rules.

And us apathetics, who win most elections, watch it as we watch a sporting event. We bet on it. I've sold Mrs C for President.

If only Arnie could stand. He's more American than most it seems to me.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

This "thing" with O'bama and Novak has me somewhat concerned as does the "Social Security Crisis" and "illegal aliens/drivers licenses" It seems to me these are contrived issues emanating from right-wing talking points; responding to them is total a disintegration of legitimate debate issues. Not to say that O'bama is the only one doing that.

I dysrepectfully dysagree.

Not with the Novak matter, though. There the attack should have been immediate and loud and directed at Novak and what he was up to. Ideally, that should have been coordinated between the two campaigns (and if they don't have some mechanism for immediate 'red telephone' liasing, I'll be pissed at both of them).

But I don't think that either campaign will strategizing effectively if they ignore the traps the right it trying to set for them, eg policy matters like immigration and the slime attacks.

I thought Obama was slow to get right response for the latest slime, but he got there...point to the rightwing history of such slimes and openly declare it won't be tolerated and must be nipped in the bud. Strength, integrity, principle, honesty. We know how Kerry got it wrong by ignoring this stuff too long.

It looks like immigration and external danger will be the two issues that the right tries to trip the dems up on this time. The dem candidates, I think, simply have to address these policy issues. They are issues driven by, or certainly colored by, rightwing talking points as you say, dys, but I doubt it will work to ignore them. Just how they get addressed so as to negate the traps set is where each camp needs its geniuses.

0 Replies

The Clintons don't have a "slime" machine, blatham? Whenever I check into this forum, I am continually amazed and incredulous at how such obvious, plain as day things apparently escape the vast intellectual capacity of the arts and croissant crowd.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think it's her dirty tricks. They're starting to backfire.

Come on now, freeduck. Do you really want to be forwarding the fundamental slime vector?

I have no strong allegiance to the woman but I have, as my greatest passion in all of this, the marginalization or destruction of a political movement which has gotten itself into power through such Machiavellian and amoral means as these slime attacks.

0 Replies

okie wrote-

Quote:

arts and croissant crowd

I'll use that sometime.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I think it's her dirty tricks. They're starting to backfire.

Come on now, freeduck. Do you really want to be forwarding the fundamental slime vector?

I have no strong allegiance to the woman but I have, as my greatest passion in all of this, the marginalization or destruction of a political movement which has gotten itself into power through such Machiavellian and amoral means as these slime attacks.

I know. The thing is, I see her as the same by another name. I don't think she or her people are above exactly the same sorts of things we hate in the current administration. I see her as someone who would look at the tactics of the current regime and recognize them as effective and use them to her advantage. Information control, for instance, is already something she dabbles in. I'm sure she thinks it's all for the good of the country in order to marginalize or destroy the same movement you are interested in seeing marginalized or destroyed. I just don't agree.

0 Replies

So on fox news Novak compared Hillary to Richard Nixon.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

blatham wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I think it's her dirty tricks. They're starting to backfire.

Come on now, freeduck. Do you really want to be forwarding the fundamental slime vector?

I have no strong allegiance to the woman but I have, as my greatest passion in all of this, the marginalization or destruction of a political movement which has gotten itself into power through such Machiavellian and amoral means as these slime attacks.

I know. The thing is, I see her as the same by another name. I don't think she or her people are above exactly the same sorts of things we hate in the current administration. I see her as someone who would look at the tactics of the current regime and recognize them as effective and use them to her advantage. Information control, for instance, is already something she dabbles in. I'm sure she thinks it's all for the good of the country in order to marginalize or destroy the same movement you are interested in seeing marginalized or destroyed. I just don't agree.

I understand that you do. The question I'd put to you is what credible accounts or evidence bring you to such ideas?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

There have been polls about this too though, I can go find them. That Obama rates high on "sincerity," Hillary rates high on "toughness" (or some synonym), etc.

This - from September - was the most telling one I've seen.

nimh wrote:

In a new survey, the Pew Research Center asked respondents "a different kind of question".

They asked: "as I say some words or phrases, tell me whether John Edwards, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton comes to mind." (The names were read in random order.)

<snip>

Interesting stuff - these were the results:

0 Replies

Thanks, nimh! That's one of the ones I was thinking of, yes.

Blatham, the "Bunker Hillary" article demonstrates some of what FreeDuck is talking about.

0 Replies

Note, though, that even on associations like "honest", Obama's advantage is quite limited (32 to 24 to 19 is no slam dunk), when compared to the crushing lead Hillary has on associations like "tough" and "smart".

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thanks, nimh! That's one of the ones I was thinking of, yes.

Blatham, the "Bunker Hillary" article demonstrates some of what FreeDuck is talking about.

Yes, but only some, and really it is of a tenor quite different from what freeduck expresses. And it is a recent piece yet I'll presume that freeduck's notions evolved over a longish period of time.

All I really wish to do here is encourage FD to, so well as is possible, reflect upon the sources of those ideas.

0 Replies

Yeah, there was a recent one with "sincerity" where he scored much higher. I don't know where to find it though... I'm pretty sure that was the word used but a Google search isn't turning up anything (or more to the point is turning up too much... haven't found what I'm thinking of in the haystack yet).

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know