Why do you still support Bush?

BernardR wrote:

I very much appreciate the time spent correcting me Bernard. I only work with what I am able to access.
Clearly, you have trumped me and I stand corrected on this matter.

Given the very high standard that you have demonstrated Harvard to adhere to vis a vis admissions, attendence and academic standings, and in light of the energy with which you have pursued Frank's apparently anti-intellectual and "unacademic" writing, how do you defend the someone so unacademic as Mr. Bush?
He is clearly not someone Harvard would hold as their prized graduate, espectially in verbal skills or as a businessman.

0 Replies

But he is President of the United States. Not a feat every person achieves. I am quite sure they are proud to call him an alumnus.

0 Replies

As President of the United States, I'm sure they are proud.
But having routinely demonstrated to be completely inept on so many levels, intellectually, in business and otherwise, I doubt it.

Since the topic has been dodged by so many Bush supporters...why do you still support him McG...

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

BernardR wrote:

In his fine book, "The University" An Owner's Manual--By Henry Rosovsky--W. W. Norton Co.-New York- 1990, Mr. Rosovsky, is unlike the mysterious Mr.Shapiro referenced by Mr. Candidone(Please, who is he and what credentials does he have?)

Mr.Rosovsky has the highest credentials and is able to speak with the highest authority concerning "legacies".

As I have noted, Harvard has only its credibility to go on. Anyone who has ever attended the Harvard Business School or has visited the classes knows that that school is not a venue in which you take a mid-term, a final and perhaps do a paper.

After some research on Rosovsky, I see what his "credentials" are.

Quote:
Rosovsky is a rooter, for Harvard particularly and for the American research university in general.

Quote:
He chooses not to consider a darker, much less hopeful story, one in which academics have been consistently timid if not cowardly in defending rationality and meritocracy, cravenly surrendering again and again to special interests, to threats of violence, to sophistry, and to the forces of irrationality and bigotry.

Quote:
Politics have been the serpent in the educational garden in this century, and with a characteristic American spin, politics have been active in United States universities for some time now. Rosovsky does not even notice the problem, and most academics would share his optimism that we in this country are free of the ills of less happy lands.

Source

I'm not above calling Rosovsky biased in his "critique" of Harvard.
He is a Harvard "rooter" who denies the "darker connection" of political influence in post secondary institutions.
I suppose the Skull and Bones-Political connection is a mere triviality to Rosovsky?

0 Replies

Mr. Candidone. I am very much afraid that you are being disengenous. You do not tell us who Dr. Henry Rosovsky was.

quote:

Dr. Henry Rosovsky was the DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES AT HARVARD FOR ELEVEN YEARS.

As such, he was obviously in an excellent position to observe the inner workings of the admissions office.

Now, if you wish to impugn Dr. Rosovsky's comments, please gather some evidence that the words I quoted from his book are lies or misrepresentations.

If you cannot, they stand!!

0 Replies

I am afraid Mr. Candidone that your comment concerning President Bush as being COMPLETELY INEPT is COMPLETELY GENERALIZED. I am sure that you cannot bring evidence to bear that he is COMPLETELY INEPT.

Since you cannot, I am respectfully suggesting that you do not commit any more egregious errors of overgeneralization. You know what I mean, of course--like "All liberals are Communists"--that kind of generalization which because of its all encompassing ALL( akin to your COMPLETELY) is unable to be subject to empirical proof!

0 Replies

Well bernard, can you tell us WHAT Bush and his administration are not inept in?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Since the topic has been dodged by so many Bush supporters...why do you still support him McG...

The topic has been dodged by no one. You simply deride and dismiss in your schoolmarmish way.

You have a cheap little agenda, Candidone, but lack the wherewithal to admit it.

0 Replies

Not inept in?

The most important things of all

l. Elected in 2000

2.Added House and Senate Seats( although the party in power usually loses seats in an off year) in 2002

3. Won re-election in 2004.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Not inept in?

The most important things of all

l. Elected in 2000

2.Added House and Senate Seats( although the party in power usually loses seats in an off year) in 2002

3. Won re-election in 2004.

Well Possum or should I address you as Mr All But Dissertation? We
readers have only your opinion that you hold numerous advanced degrees, that you have written a book and that Bush (George) is ept. I did graduate the 8th grade and I hold the opinion that Bush (George) is a moron.

0 Replies

Bernard wrote:

Not inept in?

The most important things of all

l. Elected in 2000

2.Added House and Senate Seats( although the party in power usually loses seats in an off year) in 2002

3. Won re-election in 2004.

Then we can conclude from your statement that Bush is inept in everything outside of getting elected. I won't argue that point with you.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Bernard wrote:
Not inept in?

The most important things of all

l. Elected in 2000

2.Added House and Senate Seats( although the party in power usually loses seats in an off year) in 2002

3. Won re-election in 2004.

Then we can conclude from your statement that Bush is inept in everything outside of getting elected. I won't argue that point with you.

A faulty conclusion, but one which still begs the questions dodged earlier by Candidone:

Why couldn't the Democrats defeat one so inept in 2004, why have they gained so little ground (if any) since 2000, and who actually is most inept in this big picture? Laughing

Hint: Scroll up and peruse the usual liberal fare ...

0 Replies

Quote:

A faulty conclusion, but one which still begs the questions dodged earlier by Candidone:

No, I asked you a direct question and you answered. Would you like to modify your answer?

0 Replies

Because they used every bit of Rove's bag of thuggery to scare the American people into thinking they had to support the idiot. And lets not forget the "Smear Boat Veterans". When the blinders came off after the Katrina blunders and the Iraq mess worsened, people woke up. He would not get re-elected today.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Quote:
A faulty conclusion, but one which still begs the questions dodged earlier by Candidone:

No, I asked you a direct question and you answered. Would you like to modify your answer?

To whom do you believe you're speaking?

0 Replies

Vietnamnurse wrote:

He would not get re-elected today.

Actually, I think he would.

If he ran against Kerry ...

Or Gore ...

Or Hillary.

At the very least it would be a helluva lot of fun to watch.

0 Replies

That's just your opinion and I have mine! :wink: Actually, from the Republicans who are my friends and have always voted Republican, they say they would vote for Kerry today. Even knowing Kerry was not the best candidate ( I concur, BTW). People in the US are more aware today of the blowback this admin is causing in almost every area and they are worried.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

As President of the United States, I'm sure they are proud.
But having routinely demonstrated to be completely inept on so many levels, intellectually, in business and otherwise, I doubt it.

Since the topic has been dodged by so many Bush supporters...why do you still support him McG...

Haven't I answered that already?

Bush holds many of the same ideological ideas that I do. Family values, hardline stand on terrorism, protecting American interests and institutions, advancing the American philosophy and standards throughout the world.

The Bush administration has many many mistakes, no doubt. I am most troubled by the work of the cabinet. I have always thought that one of Bush's greatest feats was assembling a world classed cabinet to advise him. Their performance has been less than satisfactory in my opinion.

So, there ya go.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am afraid Mr. Candidone that your comment concerning President Bush as being COMPLETELY INEPT is COMPLETELY GENERALIZED. I am sure that you cannot bring evidence to bear that he is COMPLETELY INEPT.

Since you cannot, I am respectfully suggesting that you do not commit any more egregious errors of overgeneralization. You know what I mean, of course--like "All liberals are Communists"--that kind of generalization which because of its all encompassing ALL( akin to your COMPLETELY) is unable to be subject to empirical proof!

BernardR wrote:

the left wing may re-iterate the mantra that Bush lied but until President Bush is subject to a deposition

BernardR wrote:

I am very much afraid that all of the meaningless caterwauling is just the moaning of left wing liberals who have been shut out of power since 1994

BernardR wrote:

one of the points the left does not understand is that combatants who are not uniformed and do not fall under a well known and publicized hierarchical chain of command

BernardR wrote:

But, not for the left wing which will do anything and state any lie or any unproved or unprovable charge to denigrate President Bush because they are political partisans

I am respectfully suggesting that you do not commit any more egregious errors of overgeneralization.
How predictably hypocritical. Your posts are littered with generalizations about "the left" and "the left's appetite for anything Clinton".
For an academic intellectual like yourself, I would hope that you apply the same standard to yourself as you do to others.

You, "Mr. Bernard", chose to use my quote out of context.

candidone wrote:

having routinely demonstrated to be completely inept on so many levels, intellectually, in business and otherwise

Bush as a businessman:
Failed with Arbusto and Spectrum 7/Harken fiasco.
....I'm sure you are aware of these.

As an intellectual:
I needn't point out his countless embarassing gaffes and inability to speak publicly without a telepromptor (or with one for that matter). Your indictment of Frank's apparent inability to write intellectually on a public message board should also be applied to the president of the United States when addressing the nation via the press.

Otherwise: Past history of drunk driving, drug abuse...as the son of a prominant politician....and this.

You can paint me as a blind partisan, and generalize me as you have others elsewhere, because I loathe this president, as a Clinton lover, but as you are well aware, Clinton just had a different set of vices, and of him I am hardly a fan.
I'd hate for you to mistakenly lump me in with "the left" that you so often refer simply because I detest Bush and validly contend that he is inept.

The generalization that he is inept far outweights any contention that he is generally ept.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Haven't I answered that already?

Bush holds many of the same ideological ideas that I do. Family values, hardline stand on terrorism, protecting American interests and institutions, advancing the American philosophy and standards throughout the world.

The Bush administration has many many mistakes, no doubt. I am most troubled by the work of the cabinet. I have always thought that one of Bush's greatest feats was assembling a world classed cabinet to advise him. Their performance has been less than satisfactory in my opinion.

So, there ya go.

Thanks McG....as always, a straight up response.
It really wasn't a trick question.

Seems that it is compatible to be a supporter of Bush yet admit to mistakes and disappointment in the administration.

0 Replies

Why do you still support Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know