Why do you still support Bush?

Bush was admitted to Yale in 1964 under an affirmative-action policy for children of alumni -- what colleges call a "legacy" system. Legacy preferencesstill exist today., 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.

You can get into Harvard because of the mere merits of your birth, rather than those of your life or your mind. You can get in because your parent is a graduate. You can get in because you are a "legacy."

He was asked, "Colleges should get rid of legacy?"

Bush responded, "Well I think so, yes. I think it ought to be based upon merit."

Under legacy programs, applicants are given an advantage if their parents or grandparents attended the school. Bush, a third-generation graduate of Yale University, joked about his own legacy. "Well, in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps," he said to laughter.

Whoodathunk- I must admit that I admire the left wing for its "presentation of evidence." They call names and make statements but offer no proof.

Operating under the assumption you really are as dense as you appear and ignoring your prickish behavior

You ruffle feathers with your schoolmarm approach

I guess that's your way of validating your whiney position.

I guess that's your way of validating your whiney position.

Honestly, I expect more from you pointy-headed smarty pants.

If you do think that,then you are even more dense ....then (sic) I thought you were.

You're an intellectual and certainly capable of a Google search. Find it yourself

BernardR wrote:

Whoodathunk- I must admit that I admire the left wing for its "presentation of evidence." They call names and make statements but offer no proof.

Although I admire your comraderie, it's completely baseless.
For someone with 4 degrees, you have poor reading comprehension:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Operating under the assumption you really are as dense as you appear and ignoring your prickish behavior

WhoodaThunk wrote:

You ruffle feathers with your schoolmarm approach

WhoodaThunk wrote:

I guess that's your way of validating your whiney position.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

I guess that's your way of validating your whiney position.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Honestly, I expect more from you pointy-headed smarty pants.

Mysteryman wrote:

If you do think that,then you are even more dense ....then (sic) I thought you were.

After being called upon to support an unsubstantiated claim:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

You're an intellectual and certainly capable of a Google search. Find it yourself

If Bush was entitled to be at either Yale or Harvard, I'm sure he would, at minimum, have been around the median. Not 180 points below.

Mysteryman wrote:

If you do think that,then you are even more dense ....then (sic) I thought you were.

Yo mama.

candidone1 wrote:

If Bush was entitled to be at either Yale or Harvard, I'm sure he would, at minimum, have been around the median. Not 180 points below.

Without some sort of data as to the range and grouping of the scores, one cannot be sure that this is an abnormally low score for those admitted to Yale. (Although I suspect it is.)

I would be quite interested to see what the mean, median, and stardard devation of the scores are if one excludes those that were granted entry due to the legacy program.

FOR LEGACY APPLICANTS, "THE REALITY IS that if you are a son or daughter of a Yale College alum, you have a slight edge," Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Richard Shaw said. In last year's applicant pool, for the class of 2006, 715 students applied whose parents are alumni of Yale College or of Yale's professional and graduate schools. Of those, 209 were accepted, resulting in a 29 percent acceptance rate, 16 percent higher than Yale's overall mark.

Clearly, having legacy status gives a significant boost to one's statistical chances of getting into Yale. But, according to Shaw, these applicants are given no preferential treatment in the admissions process. "When they're read, they're not read in any particular way. They're not presented in any particular way; they're read in their school group like the rest of the applications," he said.

Shaw's explanation for higher rates is that "legacy applicants tend to be coming from families that value education." Indeed, Shaw contends that average GPA and SAT scores for legacies "often exceed the mean" of the rest of the college

WhoodaThunk may as well have wrote:

Yo mama.

Now I no longer have to read the drivel posted by those who proclaim to exist in the so called "mantle of intellectualism".

WhoodaThunk may as well have wrote:

Yo mama.

Mr. Apisa claims that he was published in the letters to the editor section of the New York Times. I do believe it but he must have written a great deal better than he did in his last post.

Here are his responses to my post:

BernardR wrote:
Mr. Apisa- I will be happy to interact with your obviously great talents in the future.

However,I am sure that I would be remiss if I did not inform you that I am also a scholar. I don't know the field in which you received your degree but I can tell you that I have four advanced degrees- Three Masters' Degrees and one Certificate of Advanced Studies which I earned at the University of Chicago after I had finished all my courses and my prelims and language exams but, had not, unfortunately, completed my dissertation for the PhD.

I have also written a little. I published a book last year and was the chief columnist for the University Newspaper quite a few years ago.

You still have a regrettable lack of polish in your writing. Anyone who can not create an insult that does not rise about "fuking moron" is, in my opinion, almost totally bereft of the kind of imagination that it takes to write clearly and persuasively.


Mr. Apisa says then that he has no trouble writing clearly and persuasively.

I have some news for him. Try submitting a manuscript to a good quality magazine which uses the description of the president as a "fuking moron" and see what kind of a response you receive. If you think you have no trouble writing clearly and persuasively, I am very much afraid that you are delusional if you think that using the gutter terms utilized by the rappers--"fuking Moron" -gives your writing a professional polish.


Quote Mr. Apisa
I have no trouble writing clearly and persuasively...and if your priggishness is too great for you to recognize that...be advised that the problem is with you and your narrow mindedness...and not with me or my writing talents.

end of quote

Quote:
I usually do not like to parade my accomplishments on these threads, but your so-called "accomplishments "do not intimidate at all. It makes one wonder, after reading your rather coarse presentation, whether there is indeed any truth in your claims.

Quote Mr. APisa
My comments regarding my accomplishments were not made to intimidate...but rather were a response to your fruity little way of insulting others. Try growing a set of balls...and make your insults like a man rather than a pansy.
end of Mr. Apisa quote
I am eager to learn. How do you make insults like a man? Do you respond to people and tell them that they have a "fruity little way of insulting others"?

Again, you violate the TOS by making insulting remarks. You say that I should make my insults like a man rather than a pansy. I was unaware that a "pansy" made insults differently than a man. Do you have a reference to show that 'pansies"( whoever they are) make insults differently than a man?

Quote Mr. Apisa:

And as for whether or not there is truth in my claims...I have the balls to post under my own name...not some fruity little disguised name like you...so you can go onto the Internet and check if you choose.
End of quote from Mr. Apisa
Again, a gratuitous insult. "some fruity little disguised name". I did not know that all of the posters on these threads gave their proper names. Is that what you are saying? And, what is it, exactly, that makes a name-
"fruity"? Do you have some kind of empirical test?


Quote:

As for your comments with regard to "What money can buy in this country"( and since you are so talented) would you please explain, in some detail, how it was that the man whose father had a ton of money and a load of influence, especially on the East Coast, was unable to get his parent to exercise the influence or use the "money" you think can buy anything, to get his cheating son back into Harvard after he was expelled?

Here, sir, I challenged you. I gave you a problem to solve. You were clearly unable to answer my challenge. This puts the lie to your comment about your ability to write clearly and persuasively

Quote from Mr. Apisa:

No need to do so. Money can buy plenty...but it cannot buy everything.
End of quote from Mr.APisa
I am willing to learn, Mr. APisa. When you say, money can buy plenty...but it cannot buy everything, would you be able to give a list of what you think money can buy and what money can't buy? Are you saying that Senator Ted Kennedy's father was unable to keep his son from being expelled from Harvard with cold cash? Is that part of what you claim cannot be bought? You are very unclear. Are you saying that Bush, Reagan, and Eisenhower could be bought but that Johnson, Carter and Clinton could not be bought. Some clarity

quote from Mr. Apisa
George Bush is a fukin' moron...and anyone who cannot see that simply is not looking. He is an embarrassment to our country.
End of quote from Mr. APisa

Quote:

I am sure you will not be able to explain that.

Quote from Mr. Apisa
I am even surer that I will not bother to try.
end of quote from Mr. Apisa
Quote:

And, would you explain just exactly how George W. Bush was able to get a degree from the prestigious Harvard School of Business?

I have heard from other people who know nothing about higher education that the Professors were probably paid off or that some people did President Bush's work for him.

Only people who have never been on campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts and know NOTHING about Harvard and how strictly their reputation is guarded would make ridiculous comments about "Payoff"

Quote from Mr. Apisa
Right!!!!

In your guarded world...such a thing is impossible.

Well...no one ever said a requirement for being an American conservative is to have a functioning brain!

End of quote from Mr. Apisa


Mr. Apisa's stunning rebuttal to my comments on Harvard are nothing more than a completely unproven statement--
"In your guarded world..such a thing is impossible"

As I noted perviously, I am willing to learn. However, a statment about "something being possible" simply is not enough. It must be shown to be true. Since Mr. Apisa did not show how the payoff" worked, the payoff does not exist except in his own mind.


Quote:

Of course, the fact that President Bush's SAT verbal score has been published and shown to be about 60 points higher than that of Senator Bradley(Rhodes Scholar) means nothing to you since you would probably say that the publications which revealed those scores were "Paid off"


Quote Mr. Apisa

Anyone who has heard Bill Bradley speak off the cuff...and also has heard the moron in chief "speak" off the cuff...realizes that the so-called "60 point higher" is a fraud of some sort. George Bush does not speak nearly as well as most candidates for high school offices. He is a fukin' moron.
End of quote of Mr. APisa.

Yet, Mr. Apisa, the GW Bush higher verbal score is a matter of record. I will give evidence at a later time. I remember a president I could barely understand. He visited Harvard and I clearly remember that he said-

We left the cah in the Havad Yad!

Quote:
I am astonished that someone with a "graduate degree" would descend to the depths of calling someone, as you called me, a "prig and a fruit". I would never do such a thing.

Quote Mr. Apisa

Yeah...most fruity prigs wouldn't.

End of quote of Mr. Apisa
Quote:
First of all, it is contrary to the TOS. You do know what that is, of course.

Secondly, it reveals a mentality which cannot bring evidence to bear but rather seeks to bully. I assure you, sir, that I cannot be bullied. Not since I am probably six inches taller than you are and outweigh you by at least 50 pounds. Before you ask, my waist size is 40.

QUote Mr. APisa
So you are a large, probably fat fruity prig.
End of quote Mr., APisa
What is your point?


Quote:
Now, why don't you try to act like a gentleman and discuss things in a mannerly way?

Quote Mr. APisa
Sure. Be delighted, Mr. R.

You may be right, Mr. Apisa. On the other hand, you may not be right.

Again, I challenge you to bring evidence to these threads. Personal comments like Fruit and Prig demean only you and show that you are unable to debate with ideas rather than insults.

Stay tuned:

No wonder you like the moron in chief. This last post of yours was one of the worst I've ever seen at this site.

You are such a laughably starched shirt I almost feel uncomfortable dealing with you.

Almost!

Frank Apisa wrote:

No wonder you like the moron in chief. This last post of yours was one of the worst I've ever seen at this site.

You are such a laughably starched shirt I almost feel uncomfortable dealing with you.

Almost!

Frank: If responding politely to gutter-mouthed posters makes one a starched shirt, so be it. In keeping with your metaphor, I'm afraid that would make you the forgotten, mildewed shirt found at the bottom of the washing machine after a two-week vacation.

Candidone,
I need you to clear something up for me.

Those of us that have been in combat know that mistakes and accidents happen,its sad but its true.

Now,you seem to think that the marines at Haditha are guilty.
I dont know if they are or not,because I wasnt there.
I am willing to wait for ALL the evidence to come out,including any exculpatory evidence.

Now,you seem to want to punish these marines now,and I agree that those found guilty after a court martial should be punished (preferably with the death penalty).

Why are you willing to convict these marines now?
Why dont you want them to have the same rights that you want those being held in Gitmo to have?

The marines are,under our system of justice,innocent till proven guilty.
They are entitled to a defense,and entitled to present evidence and to face their accusers.

Judging by your statements,you dont seem to want these marines to have these rights,you just want them convicted.

Why is that?