0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:02 pm
Dear sir--Mr. Gustavratenhofer-- That's not nice. That is an argument "Ad Hominem" You are not rebutting the substance, but attacking the person delivering the message.

You may, of course, try again, sir!!!
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:41 pm
Bernard/Massagaggoes/etc., a bit of news I found at another forum:

Breaking all over corporate media this morning is a new study showing early humans and chimpanzees mated
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/tech/main1627644.shtml

Does this explain the Republican species?

So that's what happened to Chicken george and Bernard!
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:54 pm
BernardR/Massagatto/etc.,etc.,

No, I don't have a link for his narcissistic behavior. I am a nurse who has worked in psychiatry and I recognize the symptoms of abnormal
behavior. Who cares if I have a link? You haven't changed one iota from your behavior on Abuzz. I remember you on the global warming threads. Well, as Colbert said so suscinctly in his talk at the press club, "remember that metaphor about glaciers, because your grandchildren will have no idea what you are talking about!" Links, scminks!

I am not a Canadian....I choose to be one when I travel.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:07 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Bernard wrote:

I did not know that the majority of the American people were so stupid.


You must be one of them if you didn't recognize that fact.


Damn you, gus! You took the words right out of my mouth! Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:18 pm
It's a foregone conclusion about BD as one of those stupid Americans; as well as the others included in the 29 percent that still supports Bush.

They keep saying Bush graduated from Harvard, but they fail to see his grades; mostly Ds. The professors couldn't afford to flunk him account of his daddy. That's how he got into Harvard in the first place; his grades would have not have been acceptable under any other circumstance.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:20 pm
Presidential Legacy
Bush's stance on affirmative action belies a student who received some conspicuous legs up.
Peter Dreier

President George W. Bush was an affirmative-action beneficiary, at Yale University and then at Harvard Business School. Now he wants the University of Michigan to end its policy of considering applicants' race, among other factors, in admitting students. According to Bush, this approach "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based on their race."

Bush was admitted to Yale in 1964 under an affirmative-action policy for children of alumni -- what colleges call a "legacy" system. Legacy preferences still exist, of course, at most selective schools, including Michigan and Yale. But they no longer carry quite the same weight they did at schools such as Yale, Princeton University and Harvard University when Bush was applying to colleges in 1964.

The president never released his high-school grades from Andover -- an elite New England prep school that his father had also attended -- or his SAT scores. But several years ago, The New Yorker got hold of Bush's Yale records and discovered that he scored a 566 on the verbal SAT and a 640 on the math SAT -- 180 points below the median score for his Yale classmates.

From what is known about Bush's academic performance at Andover, it is doubtful that he would have been admitted to Yale unless his father (at the time a Texas businessman running for the U.S. Senate in a race he eventually lost) and grandfather (Prescott Bush, a former Republican U.S. senator who represented Connecticut from 1952 to 1962) had been Yalies (from, respectively, the classes of 1948 and 1917). In fact, as a student, Bush studied in the Yale library's Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:22 pm
Here's the link for the above article.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/01/dreier-p-01-27.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:24 pm
Vietnamnurse- I can tell you without fear of contradiction that Colbert did not say,as you put it, so "suscinctly" in his talk at the press club....

May I respectfully inquire-Aren't nurses supposed to be able to spell simple words like SUCCINCTLY?

May I respectfully suggest that either your spelling ability is deficient(which, of course, may correlate with your ability to come to logical conclusions) or, that you do not read your posts carefully after typing them( which also may correlate with your ability to come to logical conclusions).

I am, at this time, unaware of any official and medically validated examination of President Bush which has found him to be "narcissistic".

You may be confusing him with President Clinton who was indeed written up by a respected Historian as "narcissistic".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:28 pm
From USA Today:
The link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
George W.'s B-School Days
What kind of student was the President at Harvard's MBA program? Was he eyeing the White House even then? There's a story about that...

"Harvard gave me the tools and the vocabulary of the business world," George W. Bush wrote in his 1999 book A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House. He didn't take that line from a Harvard Business School brochure, but he could have. It makes you wonder what really happened at the B-school that Bush writes so, well, methodically about.

A lot has been made of the fact that the new President holds a Master's of Business Administration, rather than the law sheepskin that most national politicians claim. Some pundits have gone so far as to say that the lessons Bush learned in two years of case studies and financial analysis will make him a better leader -- just look at all the stories recently about how Bush is managing the White House as if he were a CEO. Curiously, though, in his 243-page book, Bush dedicates only five paragraphs to the time in his life when he "was fascinated by the case study method that Harvard used to teach."

Dubya fascinated by the Harvard case-study method? Come on, let's have a little more detail. What about burning the midnight oil? What about the toga parties? Did he kiss up to professors to get better grades? He'd go on to own the Texas Rangers baseball team, but could he find the time to play intramural softball?

Dip into the class of 1975 alumni roster, and there's something to be learned about Bush the B-school student. Lesson No. 1 is what a tight group this is, all still looking out for each other. But they tell some interesting tales nonetheless.

RESUME BUILDING. The story starts with Bush's application. These days, getting into Harvard's B-school, No. 3 in the nation according to BusinessWeek's 2000 Rankings, is no easy feat. Acceptance requires a resume with plenty of real-world work experience, a degree and a strong grade-point average from a reputable undergrad school, top Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) scores, and strong evidence of leadership capabilities.

In 1973, "making the bar [at Harvard] was 98% meritocracy," says Michael Porter, now one of the B-school's most well-known professors and an expert in international competitive strategy. Bush's application landed at Harvard while his dad, George H. W. Bush, was chairman of the Republican National Committee. One year later, Poppy would become the top U.S. diplomat to China.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:40 pm
BernardR wrote:
Vietnamnurse- I can tell you without fear of contradiction that Colbert did not say,as you put it, so "suscinctly" in his talk at the press club....

May I respectfully inquire-Aren't nurses supposed to be able to spell simple words like SUCCINCTLY?

May I respectfully suggest that either your spelling ability is deficient(which, of course, may correlate with your ability to come to logical conclusions) or, that you do not read your posts carefully after typing them( which also may correlate with your ability to come to logical conclusions).

I am, at this time, unaware of any official and medically validated examination of President Bush which has found him to be "narcissistic".

You may be confusing him with President Clinton who was indeed written up by a respected Historian as "narcissistic".


Aren't you the whiner always puling about ad hominems, Bernie?

Physician-- or in this situation, obsessive fruitcake-- heal thyself.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:45 pm
A good article- Mr.Imposter, but you left out some critical points, as usual.

You did not explain why, if making the bar at Harvard was 98% meritocracy, Ted Kennedy was uncermoniously bounced out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test.

Are you telling me that his father, One of the most powerfully well connected men on the East Coast and, especially, Massachusetts, could not have kept his son at Harvard?

You just don't know very much about Harvard, do you, Mr. Imposter.

Despite Michael Porter's comment(Porter is considered to be a very strong left winger who would certainly make such comments) someone who would know far more than Porter about how Harvard really works is the dean of the Faculty in the Eighties, Dr. Henry Rosovsky, who writes in his book-"The University"-Norton Publisher- New York- 1990-

P. 71

"The system is not corrupt; pull, personal influences, bribery, buying your way into Yale or Duke --are inconsequential factors. In nearly all instances, the choices are made by admission committees with strong faculty representation and reflect their best judgment, with minimal outside influences...Some years ago Harvard rejected the granddaughter of ONE OF ITS MAJOR DONORS AND ALUMNI LEADERS...MUCH TO THE SURPRISE OF ALL CONCERNED, THE OLD GENTLEMAN EXPRESSED A CERTAIN SENSE OF RELIEF, A RATHER CONVENIENT RESULT, HE BELIEVED, BECAUSE WHEN FRIENDS BOTHERED HIM TO HELP IN THE FUTURE, HE COULD EASILY DECLARE THAT HIS WORD COUNTED FOR LITTLE--"they even rejected my granddaughter"

Only those people who know very little about Harvard and have never even set foot in its environs or talked to people who attended, make ridiculous and unproven statements about how political influence can change Harvard's decisions--ASK THE EXPELLED TED KENNEDY!!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
From USA Today:
The link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
George W.'s B-School Days
What kind of student was the President at Harvard's MBA program? Was he eyeing the White House even then? There's a story about that...

...


You are making an effort at posting links, so I hesitate to mention it ... but your link is to a different story at USA Today ("Who is smarter, Kerry or Bush?"). The article you posted is from BusinessWeek ... LINK
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:57 pm
It is obvious that Mr.Imposter knows very little about scores at Harvard.

It is clear to anyone who knows the situation in Universities today that

l. There is a great deal of "grade inflation". (The reasons for this have to do mainly, but not exclusively with affirmative action. You can't flunk minority students so students who do better than they do must get A's so that the inferior students, usually minorities, can get B's. There are many many recent articles outlining this problem in detail and comparing the A's now with the B's and C's in the sixties, seventies and eighties.

2. Anyone who does a minimum amount of research knows that the Universities, even the best ones like Yale, Harvard and Princeton, accept SAT scores in a range. Of course, the SAT scores of today are quite different from the SAT scores of yesterday( 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990) since the SAT scores have been re-centered several times. There are many articles about this. The upshot is that some feel that the scores of today are inflated in comparison with those of the past.

3. Yale University--SAT range in 2002---1360 to 1540( Thirteen sixty represents the 25th percentile of those accepted and 1570 represents the 75th percentile of those accepted) CLEARLY, there are those below 1360 who were accepted in the high SAT score year of 2002.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 10:13 pm
Now, It is clear that Mr. Imposter has not completed his homework.

If he had delved further into the scores assigned to President Bush on his SAT, he is invited to go to

http://www.slate.com/id.73787

QUOTE:

"Here is a guy who graduated Magna Cum Laude in history, the greatest basketball player in the Ivy Colleges, RHODES SCHOLAR, probably a governor of Missouri someday--and all with a 485 verbal SAT. Bill Bradley, the "thinking" presidental candidate, scored a 485 on his SAT? That's lower than George W. Bush, the allegedly solw-witted presidential Candidate. As reported recently in The New Yorker, Bush got an SAT verbal score of 566...Bush and Bradley actually scored quite respectably when considered apart from the lofty standards of Ivy Leaguers. BOTH WERE IN THE TOP THIRD OF ALL TEST TAKERS AND WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE TOP QUARTER( AT LEAST) IF THE SAT HAD BEEN ADMINISTERED TO ALL HIGH SCHOOL JUNIORS>"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 10:31 pm
BD, The link you posted gets this:

Home
News & Politics
Arts & Life
Business & Tech
Health & Science
Style & Shopping
Travel & Food
Sports
Slate on NPR
Output Options
About Us

Search Slate

Advanced Search

Click Here!
Click Here!

FEATURED
ADVERTISER LINKS
$40,000 for $277/mo. Fixed Rate Home Equity Loan.
Refinance Rates As Low As 2.9% - FREE Quotes!



The page you are trying to reach has moved.

Try searching our Archives at left.

If you bookmarked this page, please make sure you update your bookmark once you get to the new location.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

The Slate team.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 10:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, Go back to where the US provided Saddam with WMDs. DUH!

How does that make the danger less severe? He's not dangerous with WMD because we gave them to him???

We certainly never gave him nuclear weapons, but even if we had, it would not diminish the danger.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 10:53 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Bush had warning that the aluminum tubes were not connected to nuke production. Also, he had warning that Iraq was not after yellow cake. Notwithstanding this, he and his minions claimed that the tubes and yellow cake were evidence of WMD.

This was only one small piece of the data he used to make his judgement.

Another piece of data that probably went into his decision was that Saddam Hussein had had WMD and development programs, had hidden them, lied about them, and obstructed inspectors. Now he was again claiming that the weapons had all been destroyed and the development programs terminated, yet, strangely, had no videos of their destruction, could not lead inpectors to the remains of the destroyed weapons, etc.

Usually decisions like this are made on the basis of a mountain of data, with some data contradicting other data.



Wow. Brandon. He was secretive--hiding things--lying--and obstructing investigations into his alleged unlawful conduct? It sounds like you're talking about BUSH. And yet, when it's pointed out to you that Bush is lying to our faces and committing illegal acts behind our backs and thwarting all the checks and balances that would otherwise hold him accountable----you can't see that Bush has done anything wrong.

Is BUSH a LIAR? He most certainly is. I have made that judgment based on a "mountain of data." Although you might try to contradict the evidence of Bush's lies with excuses for his many deceptions (e.g., the man is ignorant, incompetent, etc.) . . . I'm making the judgment that Bush is a liar in the usual way based on the mountain of data that says Bush is a liar.

I'm not sure of the relation of your post to the subject. My point is that the story about the aluminum tubes was hardly the sole piece of evidence that the president relied on in assessing the likelihood that Iraq possessed WMD and/or programs. The contents of your post appear largely irrelevant to my argument.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It is a collection of factors. Hussein was clearly demonstrated as an elusive, deceitful, target and finally the burden of proof about WMD came down to his problem, not ours


Well, hmm, the problem is, there isn't anything technically wrong with a nation having WMD. So it wasn't exactly his problem, was it, until we made it his problem?

Sorry but I think we should be quite concerned about the possibility of WMD in the hands of an evil dictator who attempts to annex neighbors, and pays terrorists.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
In fact, you may recall that we supplied them with WMD in the eighties. And then we were shocked when they had them in the 90's, and wanted more? This doesn't make a lick of sense.

First of all, we didn't supply him with nukes or other doomsday weapons which he later tried to acquire. Secondly, even if a previous generation of Americans had given him nukes, it would hardly affect our current assessment of the danger they pose in his hands.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The blame is on us; we misjudged the intelligence, we started the war, we made the mistake. Saddam didn't make a mistake; he knew that we were going to war no matter what he said or did, and you know that, too.

Cycloptichorn

We correctly asserted that the totality of the facts created an unacceptable level of probability that he was still hiding WMD and programs. Had he given real proof that the weapons had been destroyed, and the programs dismantled, I do not believe we would have invaded. You have not in any way substantiated your claim that we would have invaded Iraq no matter what their actions.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
People can't seem to get it through their heads that WE supplied Saddam with WMDs. To top it all off, other countries and the US has WMDs. People arguing for Bush have lost all their common sense and logic.

So an ex-convict who committed multiple homicides should be allowed to have a machine gun because the army has them. Also, the source of Hussein's WMD has no bearing whatever on our assessment of the danger they pose in his hands. Anyway, we certainly never gave him the more lethal WMD like nukes that he later sought.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:05 pm
snood wrote:
Well we all have our little things that amaze us. I'm amazed at how in the hell someone so deeply in denial can have the temerity to question someone else's thought processes.

You continually assert that we're in denial, but never substantiate it. I can assert that you're an axe murderer, and it makes you sound very bad, but if I just say it without proving it, it's meaningless. An unsubstantated claim that your opponent has this or that negative quality doesn't advance your case.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 02:40:19